Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FOREMEN AND STAFF MUTUAL BENEFIT SOCIETY (APPLICA TION OF RULES) ETC. BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: On a point of order. I think the Bill is misprinted. There is no such Bill as this; it was disposed of three years ago. I think that it should be the No. 2 Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chairman of Ways and Means?

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Sydney Irving): I understand, Mr. Speaker, that this is correct.

Mr. Speaker: I am advised by the Chairman of Ways and Means that I have in my hand the correct Title of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Higher Education (Cost)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now consider plans for requiring students at universities and colleges of higher education to sign cheques for the full economic cost of their education, after the award of grants has been appropriately adjusted; and if he will take steps to make students more aware of the

real cost to public funds of their education.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Edward Short): If, as the Question implies, awards were adjusted so that students paid no more than at present, I doubt whether the charging of an economic fee would meet my hon. Friend's point. I myself, and many other hon. Members, spoke of the cost of higher education in last week's debate on the universities and there will be much public discussion of the matter during the coming months.—[Vol. 776, c. 1341–1464.]

Mr. Dalyell: Many students have no conception of the real cost of the courses which they are doing. If the scheme implied in my question is unacceptable, has the Secretary of State an alternative?

Mr. Short: Discussions are now going on about fees in universities, but even if a student were aware of the economic cost of his course, I doubt whether he would work any harder.

Surplus Military Equipment (Use)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has completed his studies of the potential use of surplus military equipment in school classes taking technical subjects; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Edward Short: The study commissioned by the Schools Council has not yet been completed, and it would be premature to make a statement now.

Mr. Dalyell: Before the studies are completed, will special attention be given to the problems of distribution from centres such as Donnington, Edinburgh and elsewhere?

Mr. Short: There are a great many difficulties about this, and I am aware of the special problems of Donnington. The problem is being looked into and I think that we can make some progress on it; I hope so, anyhow.

Educational Psychologists

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to increase the facilities for training more educational psychologists.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): The report of the working party under the chairmanship of Professor Summer-field on the work, qualifications, training and supply of educational psychologists was published last September and contains proposals for expanding training facilities among its recommendations. I am currently considering the comments of local authority associations and other professional bodies concerned on these recommendations.

Mrs. Short: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he bear in mind that there is a great need for educational psychologists, not only in the education service, but in special hospitals and in many sections of the prison service, and will he implement these proposals at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Howell: I hope to make a further statement in the not-too-distant future. We have been operating hitherto on the target of the previous Underwood Committee, which recommended in 1955 that there should be one psychologist for just over every 20,000 schoolchildren. The Summerfield Report now recommends that this number should be doubled.

Nursery Classes (Wolverhampton)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many nursery classes will be opened in Wolverhampton during the year 1969–70.

Mr. Edward Short: Three nursery schools and one nursery class—seven classes in all—will be provided in Wolverhampton under the first phase of the urban programme.

Mrs. Short: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply, but does he not think that he is being a little unfair to Wolverhampton, which has such great needs and problems in this direction? Is he aware that, although I appreciate that Birmingham has many serious problems, too, Birmingham has received the lion's share of the West Midlands allocation under the urban aid programme? Will he look again at Wolverhampton's allocation to see if he can improve it?

Mr. Short: Birmingham is by far the biggest city in that part of the country.

But Wolverhampton will be getting all the seven classes in the first phase of the programme, and letters will be going out inviting bids for the second phase within the next few days.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the provision of nursery schools affects a wider area than the Midlands, and will he give comparative figures for the provision of nursery schools under this Administration and the previous Administration?

Mr. Short: I am glad to do that in view of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition at the weekend. Over 150 classes formed by this Government are operating, which is about 150 more than under the Conservative Government. Under the first phase of the urban programme there will be another 191, and as I have said, in the next few days we shall be sending out letters asking for bids for the second phase.

Drama Students (Grants)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretay of State for Education and Science what was the total number of students who received grants from local education authorities in England and Wales in the years 1965, 1966 and 1967 for the purpose of taking a full-time course in drama at establishments specialising in such courses; what was the total cost in each year; and if he will set up an inquiry to discover the percentage of such students who later employed the skills they had acquired.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I regret that this information is not available, and I have no reason to think that an inquiry is needed.

Mr. Jenkins: Could my hon. Friend reconsider that Answer? Is she aware that there is no recognised qualification in drama, no certainty or even probability of employment, and that the waste of public money in this sphere is probably more than 50 per cent.?

Mrs. Williams: It happens that I receive an annual report containing details of awards made by local education authorities. But I would require considerable evidence of need before I could ask the local authorities to add to their existing work.

Mrs. Renée Short: Would my hon. Friend remedy her apparent ignorance about this position by reading the recent Report of the Estimates Committee which investigated the Arts Council? Is she not aware that there is tremendous unemployment in the theatre and that we are producing far too many students for the jobs available?

Mrs. Williams: I am aware of evidence in this respect. But my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) asked me particularly to make an inquiry of 163 local education authorities, and I have pointed out that, at the present time, it would be unreasonable to ask them for the information.

School Building Programme

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many approvals for school building and improvements which had previously been given were withdrawn by him during the present year; and how many of these approvals related to primary and secondary schools, respectively.

Mr. Edward Short: The right hon. Gentleman doubtless has in mind the revision of the major programmes for 1968–70 which took place last year and which resulted in some projects previously authorised to start in those years, or earlier being deferred. I cannot say without special inquiry how many of these are still regarded as "live" projects but have not yet been reinstated in a major programme.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has announced additional provision to cope with the proposed raising of the school leaving age, will not he give priority to those projects previously approved which he cancelled when he decided to defer the raising of the age?

Mr. Short: I do not think that this would be an appropriate way of doing it. By the end of the last financial year, local authorities had built up a large backlog of work which had not been started in previous years. Some of it was no longer appropriate, so some would no longer find a place. The only sensible course was to wipe the slate clean. Last year, I introduced a three-stage system for authorising building projects: preliminary

lists, the first year; planning lists, the second year; and starts lists, the third year. For the first time, this has brought sanity into the school building programme.

Sir E. Boyle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decision to defer the school building programme and Circular 6/68 which followed caused great dislocation to local authorities? Has not my right hon. Friend a real point here? If I put down a Question to the right hon. Gentleman asking for details of the specific work involved, will I get a specific answer?

Mr. Short: It is extremely difficult to get information on that specific point without a lot of labour and expense. I agree that it caused some temporary chaos, but, since then, the position has been very much better, and the school building programme is very much bigger. In fact, it is twice what it was when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) was Minister.

Educational Maintenance Allowances

Mr. Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will compile, for use by local education authorities, a national scale for educational maintenance allowances on the model of that previously applying to the assessment of school meals; and if he will take steps to ensure that it is publicised.

Mr. Edward Short: Local education authorities have discretion in this matter and I would not seek to impose a national scale; but I hope that authorities will take account of present day needs in considering reviews of their scales.

Mr. Archer: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the final hope in his Answer, is he aware that there is such a diversity in scales and practice that sometimes even the headmasters do not know what goes on at the town hall and that confused parents simply give up? Many local authorities would welcome guidance.

Mr. Short: I should be reluctant to give local authorities guidance. I am watching the position carefully. If the


need arises, I will ask them for information about it. This is a matter which should be left to their discretion in view of the considerable local differences.

Corporal Punishment

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what figures are available to his Department for the number of schools in England and Wales where corporal punishment of pupils by other pupils is permitted; and if he will now withdraw recognition from schools where corporal punishment of pupil by pupil is permitted.

Mr. Edward Short: The answer to the first part of the Question is "None", and I will consider the second part.

Mr. Roberts: Would my right hon. Friend not agree, however, that, whatever one may think generally about corporal punishment, there are considerable dangers of violence in this form of it, which tends, therefore, to be overvalued as a means of solving problems? Perhaps a look at right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would remind him of the dangers of some forms of public school education.

Mr. Short: As I have said before, I am against all forms of corporal punishment. I think that the beating of one boy by another is a particularly repugnant form of it, and I hope that it will disappear from our schools very quickly.

New Education Bill

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, before drafting his intended legislation on educational reform, he will publish a Green Paper outlining the Government's proposals, in order to give an opportunity for the views of Members of the House and the public to be made known.

Mr. Edward Short: I intend to include in the current preparation of a new Education Bill suitable arrangements for allowing the widest possible expression of views on proposed changes in the law, and I shall bear in mind the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Lane: I am grateful for that Answer, but will the right hon. Gentleman

man bear in mind the great public interest in and ignorance of the Government's intentions? Will he remember particularly that, if the legislation is to include further steps to force the pace towards comprehensivisation, there will be strong opposition from a large section of the public?

Mr. Short: I have written to 38 bodies—teachers, local authorities, and so on—concerned with education asking for preliminary views. This is pre-consultation. When it comes to putting down our views after considering theirs, I will consult them again and make it possible for the House and everyone else interested to consider our views very carefully.

Teachers

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether it is his policy in 1969 to continue his campaign to attract married women back into teaching.

Mr. Edward Short: There will be a continuing and valued place in the schools for married women returning to teaching, but I see no need for the present to continue advertising on a national scale, as the number of full-time teachers this year will increase by 15,000.

Mr. Lane: Will the Minister bear in mind that the temporary stoppage of this advertising has caused concern among teachers, in spite of the optimistic annoucements that he has made in recent months? In view of the psychological importance of it, will he undertake to resume advertising at the first possible opportunity?

Mr. Short: I think that it is overstating the position to say that it has caused concern. It was never intended that advertising should be a permanent feature. We have tried to get it regarded as natural that married women teachers should return to teaching. I think that it is accepted now. If we feel that it is necessary to resume advertising, we shall do so.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the changing conditions about making grants to mature students are acting as a disincentive to


married women to take up teacher training? Is he further aware that, in Luton, these grants have been taken back from students retrospectively which means that, for this term, many are getting hardly any grant at all?

Mr. Short: My hon. Friend is mistaken. The grants for mature students have been improved, not worsened. Some of our most valuable entrants to teaching are from the ranks of mature students.

Sir E. Boyle: Is the Minister aware that his Answer will be widely regarded as unsatisfactory and even disturbing, especially since married women returners stay in schools when they come back to teaching? Is he further aware that we on this side of the House will seek an occasion to debate this matter before very long?

Mr. Short: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will try to make it cause concern, but I doubt whether it will. I want it to be regarded as natural for a married woman, once her children are sufficiently grown up, to return to teaching. I think that this is now accepted. We do not have to advertise to get it across. It has been got across already.

Television

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what machinery exists for co-ordination between his Department and the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales in the use of the television media as an educational aid to schools.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The National Council for Educational Technology was set up in 1967 by the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Scotland. The Council which provides machinery for co-ordination of views about overall development of television for schools as a part of its concern with educational technology as a whole, draws its members from all parts of the United Kingdom. The H.M. Inspectors of Schools from Scotland, Wales and England are associated with the Council and also serve on advisory committees established by the broadcasting authorities.

Mr. Eadie: I agree with my hon. Friend that a great deal of information has been provided on the subject, but

will she not agree, in the light of practical experience, that further information should be given, providing details of systems that have proved both technically and economically satisfactory for use of the medium?

Mrs. Williams: I agree, and I would add that south of the Border there is a great deal of interest taken in the Glasgow experiment in closed-circuit television. It may be that in this respect Glasgow is giving us all a lead.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the hon. Lady aware of the immense potential of television in Welsh schools as a Welsh language medium? Will she do everything in her power to ensure the most extensive use of television in schools in the Welsh language?

Mrs. Williams: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows about the special Schools Broadcasting Council for Wales. I understand that a great deal of attention has been given to broadcasts in the Welsh language by that body.

Older Pupils (Full-time Education)

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimates he has now made of the percentage of children expected to continue full-time education beyond the age of 16 years, comparing the years 1967 and 1970.

Mr. Edward Short: In the academic year 1966–67 there were 202,400 pupils, aged 16 on 31st December, 1966, in schools and 36,800 full-time and sandwich students of the same age in grant-aided further education establishments, these were 29·9 and 54 per cent. of the age group. The corresponding percentages for the academic year 1969–70 are at present estimated at 35·7 and 6·4. The figures exclude students in independent further education establishments.

Mr. Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend accept the implication of his reply, namely, that in future years we must spend a higher percentage of our gross national product on education? May I ask whether this is something that he has brought to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Short: Yes, I have done that; and I hope that my hon. Friend and everyone else will face the consequences with me. It means either cutting down other expenditure in some way, or cutting down private consumption by means of higher taxation. There is no other way of doing it.

Colleges of Further Education (Car Parks)

Mr. Berry: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will amend the building code which governs the number of car parking places at colleges of further education.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Within the available resources additional car parking could be provided only at the expense of other aspects of the further education building programme. At present I do not think this would be right, but it does deserve further study.

Mr. Berry: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's consideration. Does she agree that students will still attend in their own cars and on motor cycles, as many of them do these days, and that they should find space within the colleges or they will affect local residents? Does she agree that in these days it is important that the justified demands of students should be considered seriously in this respect?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman is right, but it is more desirable to find student places than parking spaces for cars. If the hon. Gentleman can supply evidence of need concerning his own constituency and the colleges within it, we will be glad to look at it again.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On this occasion I support my Member of Parliament and ask the Minister whether she will look at the peculiar difficulties of Enfield College where something could be done without too much expense and without interfering with the educational grants?

Mrs. Williams: As I assured my hon. Friend's Member of Parliament, I will be glad to look at any evidence of need.

Mature Students (Grants)

Mr. Alison: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will consider raising the ceiling level of private income, above which grants for mature students undergoing training

at colleges of education suffer reductions pro rata.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: At the last review of student grants, a further disregard of £100 of private income was allowed for widows and divorced or separated wives with one or more dependents.

Mr. Alison: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that the ceiling is still extremely low for some mature students who have sacrificed a quite appreciable standard of living to go into teaching? Does she appreciate that in some families the wife is prevented from working to support her husband who is under training, because of the £100 limit, and that they live on savings to make it up? Is not this an uneconomic way of maximising the use of resources?

Mrs. Williams: Any man or woman who has had earnings above a certain level before coming into training is entitled to an additional allowance, as well as the one I have mentioned. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular case in mind I will look into it. But I would point out that our evidence is that hardship is less marked among mature students with other income than among students with no other income.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the ceiling has remained unchanged over the last decade? Will she, therefore, consider raising it in terms of the depreciation of the value of money?

Mrs. Williams: I am not sure to which of the several ceilings my hon. Friend is referring. But, as I have pointed out, one ceiling has been doubled. However, he is right in saying that another has not been changed.

"O" Level Examinations

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many presentations there were for "O" level examinations in England and Wales, shown as a percentage of the school populations, in the years 1962 to 1968, respectively; and in the same period what was the percentage of passes.

Mr. Edward Short: With permission, I will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT


figures for subject entries, the percentage of passes, and the number of candidates from schools, in the period 1962 to 1967. The figures show a steadily rising percentage of passes.

Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the introduction of comprehensive education has widened the gateway to educational opportunity for our children? Does he further agree that it is now a fact, not an assertion, that there has been a tremendous increase in the number of children making presentations for and obtaining passes in the "O" level certificate qualification?

Mr. Short: I agree with my hon. Friend that the introduction of comprehensive schools throughout the country has made a dramatic change in the numbers of students who take the "O" and "A" level examinations. It will be one of the factors in the great explosion of demand for higher education in the early 1970s.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any significant change in the numbers taking "'O" levels as between the sciences and the arts?

Mr. Short: I think that recently there has been a swing back, but we should like to see a bigger swing back.

Following is the information:


G.C.E. "O" LEVEL (SUMMER EXAMINATIONS): ALL CANDIDATES




Subject entries
Passes
Percentage


1962
…
1,832,949
1,050,851
57·3


1963
…
2,185,310
1,242,286
56·8


1964
…
2,195,162
1,264,259
57·6


1965
…
2,170,019
1,257,683
58·0


1966
…
2,119,824
1,252,413
59·1


1967
…
2,119,879
1,256,480
59·3




G.C.E. "O" LEVEL (SUMMER EXAMINATIONS)


Number of school candidates


1962
…
329,276


1963
…
389,220


1964
…
394,535


1965
…
396,257


1966
…
389,172


1967
…
400,458

Figures for 1968 are not yet available.

Universities (Unrest and Disturbance)

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in view of the continued unrest and disturbance in a number of universities, he will seek powers to control the staff

and students at the universities, so as to enable work programmes to be carried on without interruption.

Mr. Edward Short: No, Sir. I should consider it inappropriate to control the universities centrally as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most people are sick and tired of the over-publicised antics of students at some universities? If universities are unable to exercise their own authority, surely someone should do it for them?

Mr. Short: I expressed my views on this matter in the debate last week. Discipline in our universities must be left to the vice-chancellors. They must work out their own salvation. However, they are in no doubt about the feelings of right hon. and hon. Members at the present time.

Mr. Henig: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a good deal of the overpublicising is the fault of the media of mass communication which insist on concentrating on those few universities where there is this trouble? Does he agree that in the vast majority of universities this kind of thing is not occurring?

Mr. Short: I agree about that. I said the other day that throughout most universities in the country a great deal of productive, worth-while discussion is going on as a result of the agreement between the vice-chancellors and the students last year, especially in my hon. Friend's university. I should like to see it continue. The trouble is being caused by a tiny minority of people who are not interested in redressing grievances or putting things right at all.

Mr. Lane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the strong and almost unanimous expression of view in this House on Wednesday last week will be of great help in reinforcing the position of university authorities?

Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as in the industrial sphere, there always has to be some Hash point which creates the problem and allows those who perhaps are way ahead of the others to take advantage of the situation? Does he agree that the best


answer is to investigate thoroughly the problems of the students to eliminate their difficulties than to talk in terms of extra powers and action of that kind?

Mr. Short: I think that this is being tried everywhere in the country. The director and governors of the L.S.E. have been willing to talk about grievances almost non-stop, and meetings are constantly held in the universities. As I have said, in most cases they are leading to great improvements in conditions and constitutions of universities, colleges and so on. But the fact remains that there is a tiny group of people who are not interested in putting grievances right.

Sir E. Boyle: Is it not a fact that virtually the whole House last week agreed that universities and their vice-chancellors have a duty and a responsibility to preserve law and order in an ordered academic community? Would it not be best for the House today just to reaffirm that expression of opinion?

Mr. Short: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I was answering the point whether I should control the universities centrally. It would help me and the vice-chancellors a great deal if the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend would come out firmly on this side.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Arnold Shaw, Question No. 19.

Sir E. Boyle: Mr. Speaker, this is an important matter. May I ask what the right hon. Gentleman means—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the next Question. Mr. Arnold Shaw.

Secondary Reorganisation, Redbridge

Mr. Arnold Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to help expedite the reorganisation of secondary education in Redbridge.

Mr. Edward Short: I have included in the 1968–69 and 1969–70 school building programmes projects to a total value of £465,000 for the completion of a comprehensive upper school at Loxford Lane which will serve a large part of the South Ilford area. The main part of the authority's reorganisation plan depends upon substantial building and I have therefore asked them to examine the possibility of increasing the pace of

development through the amalgamation of some pairs of existing schools.

Mr. Shaw: While welcoming the steps that the Department has taken in bringing about reorganisation in Redbridge, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can tell me how it is possible to accept a scheme for reorganisation which, if implemented, would take at least 50 years and would certainly be roundly castigated, if accepted?

Mr. Short: We looked at the scheme carefully, and it is a long-term one. Because of the layout of the schools in the area it involves a biggish building programme. This is why I have written to the local authority to ask whether it can make more use of existing schools. I hope that it can.

Secondary School Children (Non-attendance)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate he has made of the number of children who do not attend secondary schools at all.

Mr. Edward Short: In January, 1968, about 26,000 children of compulsory school age for attendance at secondary schools were not in fact in school. The majority of these were children suffering from severe mental or physical handicaps who were in hospital or in training centres provided by local health authorities.

Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a growing amount of informed opinion thinks that many children are not attending school simply because their parents would rather they did not? Will the Minister carry out an investigation into this problem? It is thought that large schools make it very difficult to check who is attending school and who is not.

Mr. Short: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. If he gives me any evidence of that, I shall look into it.

Comprehensive Education, Portsmouth

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has received from the Portsmouth Education Authority for a comprehensive system of education in Portsmouth; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Short: My Department is now examining the proposals which the authority submitted on 8th January. I shall reach a decision on them as soon as possible.

Mr. Judd: As this scheme has been a long time in preparation, and as there is, inevitably, anxiety among parents, staff, and children, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that his Department will consider the proposals with the maximum possible speed?

Mr. Short: Yes, Sir. I shall look at this as quickly as I can and let the authority have a decision as soon as possible.

University Grants

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will seek to withdraw the power of local education authorities to make university grants to the children of foreign nationals temporarily resident in the United Kingdom, where they choose to be educated in their home countries.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: No duty award is payable in such a case, and this power is exercised entirely at the discretion of local authorities. I am sure they can be relied upon to use it sensibly.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the hon. Lady aware of something quite scandalous, namely, that a 19-year-old Italian girl, whose parents were temporarily resident in this country, was sent for a four-year course at Rome University, at the expense of the ratepayers of Bedfordshire? Is the hon. Lady further aware that the Director of Education said that they were required to pay for her education because she had the proper academic qualifications and had chosen to go to an accredited university? Is the hon. Lady satisfied that local authorities can be left with this power?

Mrs. Williams: I am moved by the hon. Gentleman's concern for a county which is not his own, though it is his party's. I can only repeat that that county must have had representations made to it, presumably by Members of Parliament and councillors, and then changed its mind.

Teachers (Books and Equipment)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what studies his Department has made of

the relationship between teacher productivity and the supply and renewal of books and other teaching equipment in the schools.

Mr. Edward Short: None, Sir.

Mr. Hill: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider that decision, since the provision of books and other equipment enables significant improvements in quality to be maintained in schools, and at the same time they are peculiarly vulnerable to the pressure on local education authorities to reduce their expenditure? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that they do not suffer undue cuts?

Mr. Short: The Question relates to teacher productivity. If the hon. Gentleman will tell me how to measure it I shall look at it to see whether I can do anything about it.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what effects the limitations on local authority expenditure are having on teacher supply and employment, the engagement of part-time teachers, and the employment of newly qualified teachers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Edward Short: I have seen no effect on the employment of full-time qualified teachers, including the newly qualified. In terms of full-time equivalents, there were on 1st October, 1968, about 1,200 more part-timers than on 1st October, 1967. There has however been a slight reduction in the rate of recruitment. I cannot say how far this change is due to financial considerations and how far to employers' preference for full-timers, when available.

Mr. Molloy: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that these limitations on local government expenditure ought to be reviewed constantly to avoid the peradventure of their having a deleterious effect on other parts of my right hon. Friend's programme, namely, the recruitment of teachers, both part-time and straight from our colleges?

Mr. Short: I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that this needs watching carefully, but I must point out what I pointed out before, that in negotiating the rate support grant for the coming two years we did not reduce the estimate of


the number of teachers required by local authorities. We accepted their figures, and the money to employ that number of teachers was made available.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of new teachers he estimates will emerge from universities and colleges of education in September; if these will meet the demands of local education authorities; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Edward Short: I estimate that about 29,000 newly-trained teachers will be seeking first appointments in September in maintained primary and secondary schools. I expect this number to match fairly closely local education authorities' demands for additional teachers and to meet normal wastage.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the teaching organisations, National Union of Teachers, and so on, are apprehensive about the development of this aspect of his policy? Does not my right hon. Friend think it would be worth while holding a conference in the near future to examine the details of what might transpire in the future, to see that we do not make a grievous error?

Mr. Short: There is to be a meeting on Monday next between my officials, the teachers, and the local authorities, on this and similar matters. Similar fears were expressed in 1968. In the event, in September last year there was no unemployment. What I am saying now is that if local authorities employ all the teachers they have said they will employ there will be no unemployment among teachers in September of this year, either.

School Meals

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science by what statutory process he intends to bring to an end the provision of free school dinners to families with four or more children.

Mr. Denis Howell: By regulations made under Section 49 of the Education Act, 1944.

Mr. Ridley: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it rather strange that this extraordinary mistake could have been brought in without being debated at all? Will the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance

that we shall be able to debate the ending of this expensive and extravagant venture?

Mr. Howell: We have made no such mistake. We had a debate when we announced our change of policy. We are now consulting local authority associations about the regulations, and these regulations will be laid before the House in mid-March, or thereabouts, when we can debate them again.

Decimal System (Text Books)

Mr. Dance: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will request local education authorities to make separate estimates of the costs of making changes in the supply of books in schools caused by the introduction of decimal currency.

Mr. Edward Short: I refer the hon. Member to my Answer to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) on 14th November.—[Vol. 773, c. 126.]

Mr. Dance: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many teachers think that the allocation of money for text books in the schools is too low, and are worried that when they have to teach the decimal system the rest of the grant for education may suffer becsause new text books will be required?

Mr. Short: On the first point, I think that there are great inequalities in the provision between different authorities, and I should like to see the authorities themselves putting this right, as the Plowden Report suggested.
I think that the hon. Gentleman is making heavy weather of the second point. Schools have taught decimal currency for years. They have always taught it, and I am sure that they will take this in their stride and provide the books out of normal replacements. After all, they have had a lot of warning about this.

Equipment and School Meals (Expenditure)

Mr. Dance: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average amount spent by local education authorities per child per day in secondary schools on equipment; and how this compares with the amount of


the subsidy per child per day in respect of school meals.

Mr. Edward Short: The amount for equipment is estimated at 10d. The subsidy for school meals is 1s. 1d. The former figure includes expenditure on library and text books, materials and stationery.

Mr. Dance: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that children go to school to learn, and does not he agree that those parents who can afford to pay for their children at school should be encouraged to do so, and that more money should be allocated for equipment and books?

Mr. Short: On the semantics of this, children go to school to be educated, and they have bodies as well as minds, and bodies are equally important. But I agree that there are great inequalities which ought to be ironed out.
I have collected four new items from the other side of the House this afternoon for bids for additional expenditure.

Opera and Ballet and Theatre (Reports)

Mr. Channon: asked the Secretary of Stale for Education and Science whether he will publish the Arts Council's reports on Opera and Ballet, and Theatre, respectively; and whether it is proposed to implement these reports.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): Neither of these reports has yet been completed. It is for the Arts Council to decide whether to publish them, I understand it intends to do so.

Mr. Channon: Would not the right hon. Lady agree that there is widespread interest, as the Estimates Committee recently reported, in these reports? There has been considerable delay. Does not the right hon. Lady agree that it would be helpful to all concerned if we could get the reports through?

Miss Lee: Yes, Sir. The opera and ballet inquiry has been going on for more than two years, but I am told that if we can be patient we shall have the report in two months. The other has been going on for more than a year. It is a complicated and difficult matter, and I

am told that the report is likely to be issued about the middle of this year.

Mr. Henig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that despite all her efforts an unduly high percentage of public money spent on the arts is still spent in the London area? Can my right hon. Friend do a little more to encourage spending on the arts in areas like the North-West?

Miss Lee: I hope that all my colleagues are listening, because although I do not think that too much is being spent in the London area, I should be grateful for any additions from any direction to increase other spending.

Authors' Royalties (Public Lending Right)

Mr. Channon: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he proposes to implement the Arts Council's Report on Public Lending Right.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he proposes to introduce legislation to give effect to the public lending right proposals for authors' royalties submitted to him by the Arts Council in 1967.

Miss Jennie Lee: In a speech in September to the Annual Public Libraries Conference of the Library Association I suggested that the Association enter into a dialogue with the Arts Council about the proposed scheme, because the Library Association had been strongly critical. This it is now doing and the Arts Council is considering what further action might be taken.

Mr. Fisher: Surely the implementation of this Report is a matter of ordinary justice to authors, who cannot make a living from writing because, although public libraries lend about 500 million volumes a year, they pay only for relatively very few of them. The author, unlike the composer, gets virtually no royalties from his work. Cannot the right hon. Lady expedite consideration of this matter?

Miss Lee: I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman says and I should like to see an honourable and fair solution to this, but the Library Association is strongly opposed to an overall "tax",


which is not in the offing at all, and to dealing with this matter in any way which would involve all books in public libraries. There is a sharp conflict between the two views and I hope that they can be resolved or at least brought closer.

Mr. George Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that, without the public libraries buying books, many authors would have a very small sale? Should not the dialogue be conducted between the poor author and the wealthy publisher?

Miss Lee: That is another point of view. All publishers are not wealthy and all authors are not poor.

New Medical Schools

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to make a statement following his consideration of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Medical Education for the establishment of further new medical schools.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In the reply I gave to my right hon. Friend on 5th December, I said that projects then in the university building programmes would raise the annual entry of pre-clinical students from under 2,700 in 1968 to 3,300 by 1975. Some additional places will be provided in the building programmes for 1970–71 and 1971–72, which will include the first phases of the rebuilding to greater size of the Leeds and Newcastle Schools. The establishment of further new schools will depend on decisions on manpower targets, which are being considered in the light of the Royal Commission's recommendations.

Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Commission said that the ancient City of Kingston upon Hull fulfilled all the necessary criteria, in that it had a first-class university, a most modern hospital and an excellent teaching staff at the hospital, but that it lacked one curious factor, population? Why is it that, at this stage, we must have a population of half a million before we get a medical faculty? Other places do not need this, surely?

Mrs. Williams: I think that Kingston upon Hull also has a good Member to

add to its list of assets. The Royal Commission pointed out that some of the factors affecting the potentialities of Hull
… will … not become clear for a number of years.
Without labouring the point, I think that my hon. Friend knows that one of those factors does not come under my Department.

Documents and Manuscripts (Export)

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to implement the recommendations of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art concerning the export of documents and manuscripts; and whether he will make a statement.

Miss Jennie Lee: I am considering these recommendations carefully, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement. It is a very much more complex matter than appears at first sight.

Mr. Baker: Could I press the right hon. Lady to consider this matter urgently, since many people are concerned about the flow of British documents and manuscripts, particularly to American and German universities? Could she state the Government policy within the next few weeks?

Miss Lee: I am giving this matter urgent consideration. On common sense grounds, it would seem that, if we cannot keep all the manuscripts in this country, we should at least keep copies for the benefit of our own scholars. That is what we would all like. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are limits in a capitalist society to what one can do with private property in the lifetime of those who own the manuscripts. There are many different complications.

Mr. Whitaker: Would the right hon. Lady also consider the proposals of the Cottesloe Committee for a fund to safeguard the export of works of art?

Miss Lee: Once again, we must draw a sensible division, as I have said several times, between maintaining London as a


great international centre, and our desire to keep British treasures in our own country.

Sports Facilities, Greater London (Charges)

Mr. Moyle: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the increases in the price of hire of sports and recreational facilities in the Greater London area; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Denis Howell: I have received a number of complaints about increased charges for the hire of sports facilities provided by the Greater London Council both from Members of this House and from private individuals. The charges for such facilities in local authority parks is a matter for the discretion of local authorities.

Mr. Moyle: Would my hon. Friend not agree that this increase in charges is likely to have a deleterious effect on sports in London, and that the reason why this Question is on the Order Paper is that I wrote to him about 18 months ago and, despite several verbal reminders since, have not had a reply? Is this good enough?

Mr. Howell: That cannot be quite right, since these charges were put up much less than 18 months ago. If there has been a delay, however, I am sorry about it and I will look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PLANNING DOCUMENT (DISCUSSIONS)

Ql. Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the official planning document which he submitted to leaders of industry and trade unions for discussion at Chequers on Sunday, 15th December.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the result of the official discussions held on Sunday, 15th December at Chequers concerning the growth rate of the United Kingdom economy for 1969.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The planning document discussed at Chequers and subsequently at

the further meetings of the National Economic Development Council on 14th January and 5th February will be published as a Green Paper towards the end of this month. This will be a Government document but it takes account of views expressed by industrial members of the Council and will provide the background for consultation with industry through the Economic Development Committees and in other ways.

Mr. Lloyd: Although the House will doubtless welcome its belated admission to the Chequers and Sunningdale clubs, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the information which was used at these meetings will be published well before it becomes merely of historic value?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that the House would agree that what is being done here is right, that we had a report from officials, which was made available before Chequers and discussed at Chequers by both sides of industry, and that it was right that we should take into account the practical views of industry on this document, amend it accordingly, and then publish it as a Green Paper, so that not only the House but industry and the whole country could discuss what is in it.

Mr. Baker: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the rate of growth in the United Kingdom economy is likely to be sluggish in 1969 unless there is a boom in industrial investment? As investment grants do not seem to be bringing this about, would he consider scrapping the investment grant system and replacing it with a combination of initial allowances and free depreciation?

The Prime Minister: Investment grants were debated very fully in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on Tuesday, and the particular proposals which the hon. Gentleman puts forward were fully dealt with by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade. The rate of growth depends on the rate of export advance. Last year, our increase of 11 per cent. by volume in exports enabled us to have a much higher rate of growth than for many years past, which was, as it had to be, export-led.

Mr. Barnett: Is there any reason why a Green Paper cannot be issued for discussion by the House at the same time as


other bodies, as it is not official Government policy? As to investment grants, has my right hon. Friend seen a document issued recently by the London School of Business Studies, in which it is said that investment grants work faster than investment allowances?

The Prime Minister: On the first point, one could proceed as my hon. Friend suggests, but it is more helpful to have a definitive document which takes the views of industry into account and which is appropriate for discussions with the individual industrial "Neddies". On the question of investment grants, I have not seen the document to which my hon. Friend refers, although I should be interested to look at it, but the view expressed in it is exactly what my hon. Friend the Minister of State told the House the other day. He stressed particularly, of course, those small and growing firms which, under the system of investment allowances, have no profits record against which to set it.

Mr. Heath: When the right hon. Gentleman says that it will be a definitive document, does he mean that the document in its entirety will be agreed among the Government, the C.B.I, and the T.U.C.? If not, would it not be better for the Government to publish their own views and indicate those parts with which the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. disagree? We could then form our own judgment on the whole of the proposals.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt form his own views when he has read it. The Government will make it clear that this is put forward now with the authority of the Government and that we have at every point tried to meet the points made by industry, but it would be wrong for us to suggest that every line, every proposal, and every dot and comma in it is agreed by both sides of industry. It would take a long time to get that document published, but this will be helpful, because it is a document produced after consulting them.

Oral Answers to Questions — INVESTMENT GRANTS

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister what new steps arising out of the official discussions at Chequers on 15th December, 1968, are being taken to

co-ordinate the activities of the Treasury and the Department of Economic Affairs, with a view to increasing the productive use of investment grants by industry.

The Prime Minister: This subject has been under review by the National Economic Development Council at its recent meetings, and the Government have in hand studies to examine various aspects of investment policy.

Mr. Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend agree that while general exhortation to take up investment grants may bring results, it is about time that we sought out individual firms and virtually canvassed them in areas of good growth potential and particularly in areas of import-saving potential?

The Prime Minister: That is the purpose of the little N.E.D.C.s. My hon. Friend will have seen the recent figures of investment in industry, and particulrly in manufacturing industry, and the fact that they have falsified the very gloomy forecasts of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Has the right hon. Gentleman read and studied the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cromer, last night—[Interruption.]—and would he care to comment on the noble Lord's experienced view that this is nothing but a plumber's paradise?

The Prime Minister: I have studied that speech. It is out of order in this House to say what one thinks of a noble Lord. As for the question of investment, I am sure that the noble Lord will share the enthusiasm, which I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will feel, that the rate of investment is now so much above what it was when the Conservatives left office.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Prime Minister whether unilateral disarmament is the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We seek multilateral disarmament by international agreement, and all our policies have been directed to this end.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Have not the Government cancelled the R.A.F.'s strike


aircraft and announced the end of Fleet Air Arm and a number of major Army units? Is not this disarmament and is it not unilateral?

The Prime Minister: It is relating the defence policy of this country to our defence requirements and to what we can afford. I understand that the policy of the party opposite is unilateral rearmament which, of course, would make it totally impossible for them even to begin to fulfil any of their promises about cutting Government expenditure.

Mr. Brian Parkyn: Would my right hon. Friend initiate a serious analytical study to decide whether unilateral nuclear disarmament might, perhaps, now be the best form of defence for this country?

The Prime Minister: If I were to do that, I think that I would reach the same conclusion as has been reached on a number of occasions; that it is not the right answer. My hon. Friend will be well aware of the part played by Her Majesty's Government in getting the non-proliferation treaty, which I now see has been officially endorsed by the President of the United States. He will also know of the initiative taken by my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign Office in proposing to the Geneva Disarmament Conference not only further steps on the banning of nuclear tests but also his forward-looking proposals for an international convention on chemical and biological warfare preparations.

Mr. Peyton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that there is some need to reconcile his original Answer with the speech made recently by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the weakness of N.A.T.O.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that there is any such difficulty. My right hon. Friend's speech was fully in accordance with the policy of Her Majesty's Government. We have a duty—this was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and, indeed, by hon. Members in all parts of the House in the debate on Czechoslovakia—to maintain the utmost vigilance and strength in N.A.T.O.

Mr. Crawshaw: Would the Prime Minister agree that, if the Secretary of

State's statement is correct, there seems to be little point in keeping the conventional forces in Europe that we have there now and that it would be more credible and much more economical to defend Europe with a thin string with the avowed intent of using the nuclear deterrent?

The Prime Minister: Despite my hon. Friend's great authority in this matter, I do not think the conclusions he reaches from a study of my right hon. Friend's speech would command universal acceptance. Throughout his membership of N.A.T.O. military committees, my right hon. Friend has been emphasising the need to bring N.A.T.O.'s preparations into line with the requirements and realities, and this is what he has been succeeding in doing.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (VISIT TO BONN)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to resolve the differences which occurred in November between Her Majesty's Government and the Federal German Republic; and whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on Anglo-German relations, before his visit to Bonn in mid-February.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Prime Minister if he will state the purpose of his forthcoming visit to Germany.

The Prime Minister: On what took place last November, I would refer to my replies to supplementary questions by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) on 26th November.—[Vol. 774, c. 299–301.]
I am looking forward to my talks in Bonn next week with the Federal German Chancellor, which will cover a broad range of topics of mutual interest.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the Prime Minister reassure our German allies that the support of N.A.T.O. is as important to this country as it is to the other members of the Alliance?

The Prime Minister: If they need that assurance, that assurance they will certainly have. It has been made clear again this week by the Foreign Secretary


when he met the German Foreign Minister. Our position on this matter is quite clear. Certainly all our talks next week will be based on that particular fact.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what he hopes to achieve in Bonn on the subject of Anglo-German aircraft collaboration and nuclear collaboration with both Germany and Holland? Would he give a pledge that there will be no further reduction in the British Army of the Rhine?

The Prime Minister: On the question of Anglo-German aircraft co-operation, we hope to put forward the existing degree of co-operation in this matter. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of our interest and also the German interest in the multi-rôle combat aircraft on which a great deal of work is taking place.
On the question of nuclear co-operation for peaceful purposes—the centrifuge proposal—I refer him to an Answer which was given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology on, I think, 22nd November.
To answer his question about the British Army of the Rhine, our position on this matter is as it was recently stated to N.A.T.O. by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The hon. Gentleman will know of, and will no doubt welcome, the measures which we are taking to strengthen our co-operation in the matter of forces assigned to N.A.T.O.

Mr. Mendelson: In connection with my right hon. Friend's visit to Bonn, would he give his opinion on the recent statement made by the Foreign Secretary to the effect that it is now Her Majesty's Government's policy—as they cannot seek entry on economic grounds into the Common Market—to start negotiations, if others are willing, to have a joint foreign and defence policy? Is he aware that this flies in the face of the view of this House and of the stated view of Her Majesty's Government in the last Common Market debate, when they stated that they had no such intention in the immediate future?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps my hon. Friend has misunderstood the position. Nothing said by my right hon. Friend flies in the face of the categorical statements made from this Dispatch Box in

the Common Market debates. I stressed, for example, at considerable length the fact that we felt that the arguments on economic grounds were strong, although arguable, but that the arguments on political grounds were very great indeed and were, in our view, unarguable. I made it clear that we did not and do not support any federal or supranational structure for our relations with Europe. What my right hon. Friend said exactly expressed the position of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Corfield: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind when he goes to Germany that the Government's approach to E.L.D.O. and the way in which they have been trying to wriggle out of their obligations under the airbus consortium has seriously undermined the confidence of the German Government and German industrialists in the desirability of this country as a partner in matters of advanced technology? Will he endeavour to be a little more straightforward than has been his habit in the past?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly bear that in mind, but I do not take very well, coming from the hon. Gentleman, his remarks about wriggling out of, for example, our E.L.D.O. obligations because I remember, having looked at all the discussions which took place at the time, that when those concerned got together to create E.L.D.O. and when the Continental partners said that there must be a facility to cancel the project if the cost escalated, it was the representative of Her Majesty's Government, on the instructions of the Conservative Party, who were then the Government, who said, "No. Whatever the cost, there can be no escape."That was, I should have thought, totally inconsistent with the views of a party which talks about restraining Government expenditure.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Would my right hon. Friend advise the German Government that just as we are prepared to share our nuclear knowledge with them, so they should be willing to share the cost of the British Army of the Rhine with us?

The Prime Minister: The question of offset arrangements is of a somewhat seasonal character which attracts the


attention of hon. Members and the Government at this time of year, and my hon. Friend may be sure that I have it in mind.
I could not accept the earlier part of his supplementary question if it could possibly be construed as meaning that there would be any sharing, pooling or deals of any kind about the military use of nuclear energy. The centrifuge project is specifically related to civil use and the German Government have always made it clear that they have no interest in the military use.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Regarding what he has just said about the sharing of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, is the Prime Minister so confident that it will be confined to that? Is it not likely that any extension of German nuclear knowledge and production would increase the danger of Germany getting her finger on the nuclear trigger?

The Prime Minister: There is nothing in the existing arrangement to prevent Germany or any country from manufacturing enriched uranium by one means or another which can be used for civil or military purposes. The fact that we are proposing a nuclear-sharing agreement does not make German nuclear rearmament more likely. Germany is fully committed under every relevant international treaty against any form of nuclear weapons by acquisition or by production and nothing in the centrifuge process will in any way change that.

Mr. Heath: What is the Government's position now on participation in the European airbus project?

The Prime Minister: Exactly as already announced by my right hon. Friend. The original airbus project has now been dropped because of the decision of the manufacturers concerned to do it on a different design and with a different engine—indeed, an engine with which we ourselves have been concerned. We have said that when this particular project has been worked out, costed, and its commercial potentialities estimated, we shall consider exactly how far we should participate in it. We are not signing blind a heavy commitment running into tens or perhaps hundred of millions for projects which have not been costed or estimated in advance.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is not the best answer to these misgivings about the Germans having a military finger on a nuclear trigger a binding agreement between Great Britain and France for the sharing of our nuclear capacity as part of a European defence entity? If the Government's policy is a European defence entity, is not that what the Secretary of State for Defence is trying now to achieve?

The Prime Minister: I do not share the anxieties which the hon. Member is trying to remove by his proposal. I do not agree with his proposal, even if I shared his anxiety. My right hon. Friend was talking about discussion among the European members of N.A.T.O. about N.A.T.O. policy and defence policy in general. This certainly does not suggest—and is opposed to—the hon. Gentleman's proposal for nuclear sharing between ourselves and other European Powers.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 10TH FEBRUARY.—Motion to appoint a Select Committee to Inquire into Statements Relating to Vehicle Excise Duty.

Second Reading of the Housing Bill.

TUESDAY, 11TH FEBRUARY.—Remaining stages of the Redundancy Rebates Bill and of Shipbuilding Industry Bill.

Motion on the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order.

Motion on the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries.

WEDNESDAY, 12TH FEBRUARY.—Progress on the remaining stages of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill.

Thursday, 13th February.—Supply [9th Allotted Day]:

Debate on the Failure of the Compulsory Control of Incomes, which will arise on an Opposition Motion.

FRIDAY, 14TH FEBRUARY.—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY, 17TH FEBRUARY.—Second Reading of the Family Law Reform Bill [Lords].

Mr. Heath: Can the Leader of the House now give the House an assurance that as it has not been possible to arrange it in the coming week, or the week after next, there will be a debate in Government time on the White Paper on industrial relations? This is a matter of great importance. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have had time to discuss it among themselves. It is now time that we had a debate.

Mr. Peart: I am aware of the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members on this matter, but I should like to consider this through the usual channels if I may.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On Monday's business, if, as I could, I supplied the Leader of the House with a dozen and more cases in which rumours of leaks from various sources have been subsequently found to be well-founded, could we have a few Select Committees on these?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a business question, but a point for the debate on Monday.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was referring to Monday's business and suggesting that, in addition, we could perhaps have a few more Select Committees appointed to deal with various other leaks on which I could speak.

Mr. Peart: Not next week.

Mr. Turton: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen Motion No. 138, signed by 29 hon. Members of all parties?

[That this House notes with regret that no financial provision has been made for the widow of a loyal servant of the House of Commons who carried out the duties of train-bearer to three Speakers during the period of 28 years; and requests Her Majesty's Government to rectify this position.]

This reflects on the way in which the House treats the widows of former servants of the House and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not discuss the merits of his Motion.

Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Gentleman afford an opportunity for a short debate on this matter either next week or in the near future?

Mr. Peart: I have looked carefully into this matter. I was sorry to see the Motion, which, I believe, is based on a misunderstanding. I invite those concerned about this matter to speak to me privately about it.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on the draft report of the Northumberland Committee, which has been prematurely disclosed? Is he aware that it is vitally important that the farmers' lobby should be counted in the House?

Mr. Peart: I have seen Press speculation on this matter only today, in, I believe, a farming newspaper. Ministers have not considered this matter. As the Minister who was responsible for setting up the Committee, I am anxious to see the report, but we are not ready.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On the first business for Monday, which is a ludicrous inquiry, would it not save the time of the House and the reputation of Parliament if the matter were handed to the Ombudsman and the House were permitted to get down to something more important?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member will have an opportunity when he sees the Motion.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that we shall not have a debate on the Motion to set up a Committee on Scottish Affairs at the fag-end of a day's business next week? This is an extremely important matter.

Mr. Peart: I hope my hon. Friend does not regard Scotland as a fag-end of business.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the Leader of the House say when the debate which he has been promising for some weeks on the White Paper on industrial relations will take place?

Mr. Peart: I gave an answer to the Leader of the Opposition which I hoped would be acceptable.

Sir G. de Freitas: In view of increasing problems of water shortage in the East Midlands and in East Anglia, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of having a debate on the feasibility of a Wash barrage project?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of my right hon. Friend's interest in this matter. Whether or not to proceed with a feasibility study of the Wash barrage project is an important question, but I cannot find time for a debate next week.

Sir C. Taylor: As a Member of this honourable House, and speaking at the moment without any party affiliation—[Laughter.] Yes, on this matter—may I urge the Government not to debate on Monday on a Select Committee? I think that the whole House would agree that it is sad and outrageous if the House does not accept the word of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of any party—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The latter half of what the hon. Member said is for the debate on Monday.

Sir C. Taylor: With the greatest respect, Sir, I am asking the Government to think again. Surely the appointment of a Select Committee is to take a sledgehammer to crack—[Laughter.]—a popular but publicity-minded nut.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Personalities do not help Parliament at all. The point which the hon. Gentleman has raised about the Committee is one for Monday's debate.

Mr. Mikardo: As the Motion to set up the Select Committee on the nationalised industries is essentially a House of Commons matter, one which does not involve any kind of party controversy, and one on which there are more likely to be differences between the back benchers on both sides and their Front Benches than between one Front Bench and another, will my right hon. Friend have consultations through the usual channels with a view to ensuring that there is a free vote on both sides on this issue?

Mr. Peart: I accept that the question of the appointment of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries is one which cuts across all parties. Though I am not responsible for the whipping, I will consult.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Leader of the House aware that there may be many hon. Members who will wish to speak in the debate on Monday on the Motion to appoint a Select Committee? [An HON. MEMBER: "I hope not."] I hope not, too, but the impression I gained from the questions addressed to the Leader of the House this afternoon was in the other sense. In view of this, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a suspension of the Standing Order on Monday evening so that we can be assured of having a full debate on the Housing Bill?

Mr. Peart: I will bear that in mind.

Mr. Mendelson: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on foreign affairs, with particular reference to Britain's policy vis-à-vis the Common Market countries, before the Easter Recess, so that the House can examine what some hon. Members regard as a major shift in the Government's policy?

Mr. Peart: I will take careful note of what my hon. Friend has said and convey his view to the right quarters.

Mr. Burden: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a letter which he wrote to me saying that, though there are many people both in the House and outside who are concerned about the Littlewood Report, no time can be found? This Report was published four years ago this April and the Government have done nothing but dodge having a debate.

Mr. Peart: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a great interest in this matter, but I cannot find time for a debate in the days ahead.

Mr. John Lee: Can we not, if not next week, at any rate in the near future, have a debate on the affairs of the Atomic Energy Authority, which the Government are in process of demolishing?

Mr. Peart: I will convey my hon. Friend's observation to my right hon. Friend, but, as my hon. Friend rightly said, no debate next week.

Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the second week running that he has given a stalling answer on the question of a debate on


the very important White Paper on industrial relations? The answer that the Leader of the House would prefer to discuss the question of a debate through the usual channels is, to put it very politely, totally unsatisfactory for most of us.

Mr. Peart: I would not have thought so. I like to see that my colleagues talk to the other side; I see nothing wrong in it. I thought that I was being helpful and constructive. I see the importance of having a debate, and I promise the hon. Gentleman that I am not stalling.

Mr. McNamara: Can my right hon. Friend say when we can have a debate on the fishing industry, in view of today's statement that the I.R.C. proposals seem to be falling down? These are very important for the success of the Government's policy.

Mr. Peart: I will convey my hon. Friend's view to the appropriate quarter, but no debate next week.

Mr. Biffen: Is the Leader of the House aware that the developing inter-union dispute in the steel industry makes a debate on the White Paper on industrial relations of paramount importance; and that it should take place next week? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore reconsider the answer he gave to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Peart: I thought that I was being helpful.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: My right hon. Friend will undoubtedly have noticed with concern the thwarting of the important Luton Corporation Bill? Will he let the House have an early debate on this issue?

Mr. Peart: I know the feeling of many hon. Members on this issue. I will carefully consider the matter.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the Leader of the House realise that his conviction that he is being helpful is not much help to those who urgently want a debate on industrial relations? Is it not a wrong sense of priorities that the Government can find time for a trivial debate on Monday but cannot find time this week or next for a debate on the vital subject of industrial relations?

Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not continue to think that next

week's business is trivial. It is very important. I am trying to help, but I do not want to repeat what I said earlier.

Mr. Garrett: Is there any possibility of my right hon. Friend's providing time for a debate on the question of the different rates of public expenditure as between England and Scotland?

Mr. Peart: There is no time in the programme that I have announced. I will convey my hon. Friend's point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Dame Irene Ward: What excuse is there for not having a debate on the Littlewood Report? Many people are urgently awaiting this debate. We want to know why the right hon. Gentleman has not allotted time—not just that he has not, because we know that.

Mr. Peart: I will sympathetically consider the hon. Lady's point of view, but there is no time in the days ahead.

Mr. Whitaker: Can time be found before long for a short debate on the question of the British subjects detained in China, who are a matter of concern to hon. Members in all parts of the House?

Mr. Peart: I agree that this is a very serious and important matter, but no debate next week.

Mr. Hastings: Is the Leader of the House aware that his answer on the question of the Government's proposals for improving industrial relations are not only unhelpful but totally unsatisfactory to many of us on this side? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there will be a debate on this matter in Government time at the earliest opportunity—next week, if possible?

Mr. Peart: I said that I was aware of the important point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I would only be repeating myself if I went further. I am trying to be helpful.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the Leader of the House at last relent and provide time for a debate on the Motion about the unemployment caused by the closure of the locomotive works at Inverurie and other unemployment in Scotland?

[That this House, recognising the devastating effect which closure of the Inverurie Locomotive Works would have upon the inhabitants of Inverurie, and upon the economy of the Royal Burgh and the north-east of Scotland, calls upon the Government to give an assurance that it will intervene to prevent any closure unless alternative employment is available in the area for the work force, and an alternative function for the factory itself.]

Mr. Peart: I will convey that point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but no debate next week.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Has the Leader of the House considered that it might be possible on Monday to conclude the debate on the Motion to appoint the Select Committee by 7.30 p.m.? Would it be possible to slide in behind my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) a discussion on a minor question like the Middle East, for example?

Mr. Peart: No. I hope that we shall have only a short debate on Monday on the Motion.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on Motion 123, which is signed by 51 of my hon. Friends and which deals with the urgent matter of railway closures?

[That this House, bearing in mind the importance of a railway network adequate to the social and economic needs of the country, calls on Her Majesty's Government to make public the financial formulae used by the Minister of Transport to justify the closure of railway lines and to evaluate social subsidies where granted.]

Mr. Peart: I will convey my hon. Friend's point to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. Cases vary.

Mr. W. Baxter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern among Scottish Members and the Scottish public at large about the leakage of the membership of this supposed-to-be Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? Will my right hon. Friend make a statement about the leakage and also tell us that we can have a debate on this urgently?

Mr. Peart: I said that I would refer to this today. I have not done so. There has been speculation in the Press. I hope that hon. Members will wait for a Motion and the names.

Mr. Molloy: In view of certain Ministerial statements about European policy and the Prime Minister's intended visit to Bonn, should there not be an immediate debate on European affairs so that we can consider whether there are to be any other moves towards joining the Common Market?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend will have heard my earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendel-son). I will convey my hon. Friend's concern to the appropriate quarter.

Mr. Doughty: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate next week on the question of British Summer Time in winter time, so that legislation may be introduced to bring the present undesirable arrangement to an end?

Mr. Peart: I know that many hon. Members feel strongly about that, but not next week.

Mr. Tomney: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Cabinet to follow the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) who said this week that the best thing to do about next Monday's debate is to lay the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) upon the Table—and preferably in a limp condition?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a serious business question.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: If the Government insist on proceeding with the nonsensical inquiry which is to be the subject of Monday's debate, ought they not to announce the terms of the Motion which they intend to pursue?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I assume that the Motion will be put on the Order Paper at the appropriate time.

Later—

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? During business questions, I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether he would find time next week to


debate the premature leak of the Northumberland Committee's Report. He declined to do so and said that the Report was not yet in the hands of the Minister who had himself set up the Committee.
As the Report, now public knowledge, has been published in this week's issue of the Farmer and Stockbreeder, and is now the subject of considerable debate outside the House, and, moreover, as the vice-president of the National Farmers' Union, Mr. Henry Plumb, a member of the Committee, has on several occasions made statements which obviously show that he entered into the work of the Committee with a prejudiced and biased view—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is addressing me on a point of order, not on the merits of the Report or of the vice-president of the N.F.U.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am coming to the point of order, Sir.
As those things have taken place, and the Report has been published, my point of order is this. Will it be in order for me to ask leave to seek an early opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment, due to the unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. Friend's reply?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman could have given the notice which he gave in his last half-sentence without all the preliminary matter.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY, 24th FEBRUARY

The following hon. Members were chosen in the Ballot:

Mr. Donald Dewar.

Mr. James Dance.

Mr. Stanley Orme.

Mr. Dance: I beg to give notice that, on Monday, 24th February, I shall call attention to the effect of the restriction on overdrafts on the private sector of the economy, and move a Resolution.

BILL PRESENTED

NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS

Bill to make in the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 certain amendments necessary to bring that Act into conformity with international agreements, presented by Mr. Roy Mason; supported by Mr. William Ross, Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Harold Lever, and Mr. Reginald Freeson; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 85.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock—[Mr. Peart.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[8th Allotted Day],—considered.

HOME OWNERSHIP AND LAND COMMISSION

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: I beg to move,
That this House notes with regret Her Majesty's Government's admission that there is now no possibility of fulfilling their election pledges to build 500,000 houses per year by 1970; and deplores the manner in which Her Majesty's Government's policies have resulted in the rising cost of homes and the increasing costs of mortgages which, combined with the damaging activities of the Land Commission, is deterring the spread of home ownership.
Hon. Members on both sides will, I think, agree that bad and inadequate housing is possibly the greatest social evil. That was the view of the Labour Party at the last General Election. It put in its election manifesto those very words:
… bad and inadequate housing is the greatest social evil in Britain today.
Throughout the election campaigns of 1964 and 1966, housing was probably more instrumental in bringing about the return to power of a Labour Government than any other single issue. The question of mortgage rates, house prices and the ambitious programme which Labour announced to the country all made attractive items in its election manifesto.
In the Labour Party's manifesto for 1966 there was the plain statement:
Our first priority is houses.
There was thus a clear indication that a Labour Government would give housing more priority than any other issue. The party went on in its manifesto to be categorical as to its intention regarding the number of houses to be built:
We have announced—and we intend to achieve—a Government target of 500,000 houses by 1969–70. After that we shall go on to higher levels still. It can be done--as other nations have shown. It must be done …
Those were the words in the Labour Party's election manifesto, and there was

no one more enthusiastic about this issue as a vote-winner than the Prime Minister himself. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not present this afternoon, because of all the issues in those two elections the Prime Minister decided that housing was the one which would attract the most votes. His words at the 1966 election about the 500,000 target were more categorical than the manifesto itself.
At Bradford, a marginal constituency won by the Labour Party, the right hon. Gentleman said:
We shall go on year by year … reaching by 1970 no less than 500,000 new dwellings.
He added:
This is not a lightly given promise "—
unlike all the others—
It is a pledge. We shall achieve the 500,000 target, and we shall not allow any developments, any circumstances, however adverse, to deflect us from our aim.
On 18th January last year, the Government announced officially that they had abandoned the target of 500,000 houses. There was hardly a voice of protest from hon. Members opposite, many of whom had been returned to membership upon that very pledge. The present Minister of Housing and Local Government, when interviewed recently by Mr. Anthony Harris of The Guardian and questioned about the Government's abandonment of their election promises, said:
I am not a targeteer".
The right hon. Gentleman has changed from what he used to be. He has been a "targeteer". On 14th November 1966, in a statement from his Ministry, he said:
The Government, in putting forward the objective of a national housing output of 500,000 a year by 1970, indicated greater priority for housing over the period. It intends to maintain this priority.
On 7th December, 1966, in reply to a Question from his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), the right hon Gentleman said:
There is no change in the target of 500.000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December 1968; Vol. 737, c. 1139.]
So he was still a targeteer then. On 13th May, 1967, talking to the building industry's Economic Development Committee, he said:
The Government see no reason to modify their 1970 target of 500,000 houses a year.


Thus, in 1966 and in 1967, the right hon. Gentleman was a targeteer. Then the Government prevented him from achieving his target.
The position was beautifully summed up by the present Minister of Public Building and Works, in a debate in March, 1966, when he said rather appropriately, I thought:
I want the country to look at the number of houses which we have built, the efforts we have made and are making to ensure that we achieve our realistic target of 500,000 houses by 1970. … I ask no more than that the country pass its judgment on that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 2177.]
I ask no more than that, and I hope that the country will pass its judgment upon the Government's total failure to achieve that target.
What is the present position? A few weeks ago, the present Minister of Housing and Local Government rather complacently boasted of the completions for 1968, stating that it was a record, with over 400,000 houses, when, in fact, the total was 413,000, knowing full well that the figure was much inflated as a result of the Betterment Levy introduced in such a way that large numbers of developers started houses in 1966 and 1967 to avoid paying the levy. Therefore, there is bound to be an increase in completions.
There has been no apology from the Minister for the prospects for 1969 being worse than those for 1968, for, although the number of completions last year was a record, the number of starts fell by no less than 53,000 over the previous year—33,000 fewer starts for owner-occupation and 20,000 fewer for publicly-owned housing. The Ministry of Public Building and Works estimate for the coming year is that the number of houses for owner-occupation will be 5 per cent. down on the previous year. The Federation of Registered House-Builders, in a recent survey, showed that twice as many builders expect to build fewer houses in 1969 than in 1968 and that twice as many builders expect to start fewer houses than in 1968.
I therefore ask the Minister clearly to state how much less than the target of 500,000 houses will be achieved in 1969–70. The Prime Minister, in one of his remarkable pieces of wriggling at Question Time, when asked about the Government's

failure to fulfil their election promise, said:
There is a cut of 16,500 houses in each of the two years, as compared with the 500,000 target. It is our view that to this extent it will be that much more difficult to reach the 500,000 target; it will be 16,500 houses more difficult."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1968; Vol. 756. c. 1947.]
Perhaps the Minister will confirm that the new target is 484,000 houses for each of these years. If he cannot give us the figure, can he explain why it was possible for the Labour Party to give a categorical figure in 1966 for 1970 when it is now, in 1969, constantly evading what will be the figure for 1970? We want to know to what extent the whole target is going to fall short.

Mr. Frank Allaun: The hon. Gentleman has just said, correctly, that council house building starts went down by 20,000 last year. Is he aware that 95 per cent. of the councils in the country are now Conservative-controlled and have no undue love for council housing? Does not he agree that it is a criminal thing to cut council housing or any other kind, in view of the terrible need?

Mr. Walker: I hope that, later on, the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) will chastise the Government for the measures they are bringing in which are preventing local authorities from going ahead with increased programmes. I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman's constant and passionate interest in housing, which he has shown for many years; I have read with interest his many contributions on the subject.
Both the hon. Gentleman and we want to know what the Government now think of their White Paper on housing policy, which, strangely enough, was published at about the same time as the National Plan and contained a series of undertakings and promises, none of which is to be reached. The Government might as well tear it up. Since they have failed to fulfil the promises contained in that 1965 White Paper, let them produce a new one so that the public can understand their future ideas on housing targets.
Is it true that the Minister has reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is no need for as many houses as he once thought? It is rumoured that he is trimming his policy down to much lower


figures than are contemplated now. If so, he should inform us of the basis of his calculations, since all the evidence available to me suggests that, rather than cutting down or slowing down the housing programme, there is need to continue to accelerate it.
We had the final statement on this by the then Minister of Housing during the 1966 General Election. The right hon. Gentleman, who is now making such extravagant promises as Secretary of State for the Social Services, was in typical form. In his own election address he commented as follows upon the Government's programme:
I have launched a drive to expand the housing programme to half a million a year by 1969"—
he even beat the Labour Party's manifesto—
250,000 to let and 250,000 for sale … Of course, this is merely a beginning. If a Labour Government is returned to power, I shall help to carry out the rest of the programme on which we were returned to power last October.
The Government have failed to fulfil their pledge of 500,000 houses a year; they have admitted their failure; they have refused to give details of the extent to which they are going to fail; they stand condemned for having utterly misled the country.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I heard the hon. Gentleman say that, so far from there being a need to reduce house building, the need is to accelerate it. Is he referring to private house building or to council house building? If the latter, how does his statement that there is need to accelerate it square with the constant cry of the Opposition to reduce public expenditure?

Mr. Walker: We had a record of achieving our targets in house building both to let and to sell. That is the basic difference between the two sides. Through their policy and attitude towards home ownership, the Government are keeping people in council houses who would willingly buy houses of their own if it were not for the monstrous policies of the Government. I know the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Watford rather well and how he was elected very much on the basis of promises about mortgages. I am sure that he is aware of that position.
I turn now to the prices of houses. Once again, a great deal was said by the Labour Party about prices going up under the Tories, yet the Government have followed a series of policies which have added to prices. The cost of the increases in Bank Rate has tremendously affected the prices of houses. The Government have increased the cost of the National Insurance stamp from 12s. 11d. to 17s. and the Selective Employment Tax is 37s. 6d. for each person employed in the building industry. Thus, if we take the National Insurance stamp and the S.E.T. together, whereas when Labour came to power the industry was paying 12s. 11d. for each man, it is now paying 54s. 6d. through these two forms of taxation.
Then there was devaluation, with its effects on the cost of imported raw materials. Birmingham Housing Committee estimates that this has increased the cost of each house built in its area by £80. The Transport Act imposes various additional costs on the building industry and there have been increases in the fuel tax. The import deposits scheme has a particularly adverse effect on timber imports. Even the change to British Standard Time adversely affected the building industry almost more than any other. Finally, we have the Betterment Levy, about which I shall say something later.
In total, the effect of these measures has been that when Labour came into office in October, 1964, the average-price new house was £3,500, whereas today it is £4,500. This is the measure of the failure of a Labour Government to do anything about house prices. In some localities, the figures are worse. The average price of a three-bedroom council house in Birmingham when Labour came to power was £3,150. Today, it is £4,400.
Thus we have the failure to fulfil the programme, the increase in the price of houses, and then the remarkably adverse effect upon the whole subject of mortgages. There is no need to remind the House of that famous electioneering remark of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown):
For the new mortgages we have something in mind to the order of three per cent.


What is now a notorious remark is one which he revived when, at a by-election in Erith a year later, he started his speech with the words:
Some clever johnnies, they want to ask me, what about mortgage rates. I say, 'Brother, don't you worry. This will be done and we shall publish this year our proposals for doing it'.
There are many people paying mortgages in Erith who are still waiting for something to be published.
Then, on mortgage interest rates, the Prime Minister conducted a superb electioneering campaign. He went all over the country, from one marginal seat to another. He started, in his own manifesto:
We are going to help owner-occupiers with bigger mortgages at lower rates of interest.
He went to Sittingbourne, a marginal seat, where he said:
By intelligent monetary policies, Labour will bring mortgages within the reach of young couples living on average incomes.
He then dashed down to Stevenage, another marginal seat, where he said:
We shall cheapen the cost of housing by our interest rate policy.
He then went and spoke in his own constituency and said:
One hundred per cent. mortgages, lower interest rates and cheaper legal charges will help those who wish to buy.
Finally, in his eve of the poll election broadcast, the right hon. Gentleman said:
We believe that the Government should act positively to help owner-occupiers by lowering interest rates and, of course, to help them with cheaper land.
That was the great tour of the Prime Minister to get the votes of those struggling to repay their mortgages. What has happened since is that mortgages have gone up time after time. Indeed, two things have happened in that mortgage interest rates have gone up and the amount available for local government mortgages has gone down steadily. In 1964, when Labour came to power, the mortgage interest rate was 6 per cent. By February, 1965, it had gone up to 6¾ per cent. In May, 1966, it went up to 7⅛ per cent. In May, 1968, it went up to 7⅝ per cent. Now there is speculation everywhere that it is likely to increase again.
I plead with the Minister of Housing and Local Government not to say anything today to encourage us to think that interest rates will not rise, because he knows what happened the last time that he did that. In reply to a Question on 8th April, he said:
I do not accept the hon. Member's assumption that a rise in rates is inevitable in the very near future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1968; Vol. 762, c. 899.]
Ten days later, they put up the rates.
At the same time as interest rates have gone up, look at the way local authority mortgages have gone down. When Labour came to power in 1964, £179 million was available for local authority mortgages. By 1966–67, it was down to £135 million. Then it came down to £130 million. This year, is it down to £104 million, and now the Government have the audacity to announce that next year it will be down to a miserable £30 million. It means that, next year, about 25 people in every constituency will have the chance of a local authority mortgage. That is the manner in which this Government have treated with absolute contempt those concerned with owner-occupation.
To sum it up in simple terms, the real result of Labour's policy is that the young couple wishing to buy a new house today of identical size and type to the houses available when Labour came to power will have to find £200 more deposit for an 80 per cent. mortgage. In addition, the mortgage repayments per month will have gone up from £18 6s. 4d. then to £27 6s. now. That represents an increase of £2 a week for a young couple buying an average-price semi-detached house on a 80 per cent. mortgage. That reflects the failure of the Government in this sphere, and it is one which is affecting adversely the happiness of those concerned.
The Government have taken one measure to try and appease them. They brought in the mortgage option scheme. I wonder whether they are pleased with its results. Do they think that they have made a major contribution to the problem? Of those applying for mortgages, 9 per cent. take advantage of the scheme, and 91 per cent. reject it, for the very valid reason that even of those 9 per cent. who have taken advantage of it already it appears that they have been absolutely swindled by the scheme. They


find when they go into the scheme that it is to their advantage, but in a year or two they find that it is to their disadvantage. Under the Government's legislation, they have no chance of getting out of it.
I give the pledge now that one of our first acts when we return to power will be to change the scheme so that people can contract out of it when they find that their circumstances have changed dramatically.
The prospects for those buying houses are bleak. The cost is high and the likelihood is that it will go even higher. Only a week ago, the Chairman of the Building Societies Association said that he expects that, in 1969, the movement will provide fewer mortgages and that possibly costs will have to go up.
So we have this remarkable record of failure. Do not let anyone estimate what a shortage of building society funds means to some of the more important movements in the country. The hon. Member for Salford, East, I know, is particularly interested in the housing society and housing association movements. He will know how, at present, a number of housing societies with cost-rent projects find it impossible to obtain the mortgage facilities that they require to carry out some of their activities.
Finally, we refer in our Motion to the Land Commission. It started two years ago in February, 1967. Already it has failed completely to fulfil any of the promises made for it. It has failed to reduce land prices. It has proved to be the most bureaucratic method of collecting taxes invented, even by this Government. Far worse, it has caused a great deal of human suffering and distress of a type of which any Government should be ashamed.
When the Minister speaks, I expect that, naturally, he will announce some changes in the future of the Land Commission. I cannot believe that he will have sat in his office during this period knowing of the real human distress that the Commission has caused and not decided to take some action. I am critical of him for not taking action already. Judging by the cases which have been sent to me, I warn him that, unless he acts immediately, he will have on his

hands some very distressing human problems, because there are men and women up and down the country whose lives have been ruined by the action of the Commission.
The complacency of the Government is staggering when they read, as they must have, the interview with Sir Henry Wells, the Chairman of the Commission, with Mr. Peter Smith, which appeared in the Daily Mail a few weeks ago. In that interview, Sir Henry said that the Land Commission Act was "most complex" and had
some loose and rather nasty ends that need tightening up.
If the Chairman of the Commission is saying that in public I presume that he said it to the Minister some time previously.
I want to know what action the Minister took when the Chairman of the Land Commission told him of the "rather nasty ends" that needed tightening up and went on to say:
I am aware of many cases of unfairness. I can only administer the law as it stands.
1 suggest that that phrase is a terrible condemnation of the Government. Unfairness in this Act, which Sir Henry Wells has to administer, is something for which the Government are completely responsible. It is an Act passed by them. Surely, if already the Chairman of the Commission considers that he is aware of unfairness, the Minister should act immediately to stop that unfairness?
For some months the newspapers have been full of tragic cases. There is the famous case of the Sweetings. They are a young couple aged 26; he is a builder's labourer, earning £13 a week. His uncle gave him a barn to convert into a house and he did so by his own efforts at weekends, and the evenings, with the help of his brother-in-law. When the barn was converted, he moved into it and, at that stage, the Land Commission came along and asked him for a betterment levy of £960. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] He finds it impossible to pay; he has no such money. He earns only £13 a week, so the repayments cannot be met in any way. The Betterment Levy is imposed on the uncle, who still owns the barn. The uncle is old; he is poor and he is sick.
His relatives asked the Land Commission not to send any letters. I am told


that, perhaps inadvertently, perhaps of legal necessity, thereafter two letters were sent to the uncle. One, fortunately, the mother of Mrs. Sweeting intercepted and the other was discovered there. Mrs. Sweeting cycled four and a half miles to save the uncle from seeing the letter, knowing the adverse effect that it would probably have upon him.
This is one case of a young couple whose lives have been ruined. In fairness to the Minister, he has had two members of the Land Commission see Mr. and Mrs. Sweeting. I gather that Mr. Sweeting has been advised that, in certain circumstances, he can appeal, but there will be a long delay before the outcome of the appeal is known. Think of the distress of that young couple all this time, not knowing what is to happen.
Then there is the case of a Mr. and Mrs. Jones, who live in Gloucestershire. They are an old couple, aged 71 and 73, living in a cottage. The cottage has no hot water, only an outside toilet, a shed for washing and no bath. They had an offer for part of their garden and decided to sell, to put these amenities into their cottage. The estimate for the amenities was £1,700 or £1,800. They sold the piece of garden for rather less than that. The Land Commission comes along and asks them for a levy of £460 on the proceeds of the sale. This makes it quite impossible for that couple to improve their cottage.
Then there are the absurd and ridiculous cases; the case of someone approached by a company wishing to install a wireless aerial, a communications mast, on their land for the purposes of the local authority ambulance service. The person refused, he did not like the idea of having this on his land. Eventually, because he is told that it is essential for the area covered by the ambulance service, he reluctantly agreed. For doing this, he gets paid a rent of £75. Along comes the Land Commission and it assesses a net development value of £528 on the land. What wonderful encouragement to people who assist public authorities!
I now come to another example, concerning a growing problem of the Land Commission, the problem of the widow. This is one from my constituency, about

which I have written to the Minister and he has the correspondence. This case was of a couple who bought a piece of land to build on for their retirement. Under the Act, any such couple with a piece of land which they are to develop for owner-occupation by themselves do not pay the Betterment Levy. This couple were, therefore, in the position that, when they developed the plot of land for their retirement, they would not have to pay levy.
Unfortunately, the husband died and because the widow inherited the land she is subject to the Betterment Levy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This particular lady has been assessed for a levy of about £400, on developing a bungalow for her old age. I wrote to the Minister and his reply was as follows:
When the Act was debated, careful thought was given to extending the exemptions provided by Section 61 of the Land Commission Act to include such cases. But the matter is not so simple as it may appear. Any concession to widows or widowers would undoubtedly have led to pressure for similar concessions to other surviving dependants or relatives of a deceased owner who may have equal or nearly equal grounds for seeking exemption.
I should hope so. I hope that it would apply to such people. It is monstrous that widows should be excluded from these provisions because other dependent relatives might then be included.
Perhaps the most typical case of all is that of the young couple trying to provide a home of their own. I want to read this letter which is sent to me by someone living in Buckinghamshire, a Mr. Allen. He says:
When my wife and I became engaged three years ago my uncle gave us a plot of land to enable us to have a house built, houses being so expensive in our area. We lived in a flat for two years while we saved a little money and then we had a small bungalow built on the plot of land. We moved in in April, 1968 only to find ourselves faced with an assessment to betterment levy of £830, due in July 1968, since which time interest has been accruing at the rate of 3s. 5d. a day. We have not yet settled this liability nor can we, although we have been threatened with High Court action to recover the levy promised.
We have appealed to the Land Commission, to our local M.P. and to the Minister of Housing. They all sympathise with our case but are unable, or unwilling, to do anything about it. I am a clerk, articled to an accountant and still trying to study for my final examinations. My wife is expecting our first baby in May. I have informed the Land Commission of the complete


and utter impossibility of paying. We are already mortgaged to the hilt and cannot possibly raise the necessary money.
But why should we, anyway? We are not speculators in the land nor have we made any financial profit by having our own house built. On the contrary, we have had nothing but expense. This has all been a great worry to myself and my wife, more especially since she is suffering enough already by still having to work long hours to help keep us. Obviously, individuals such as myself can do nothing about this, but I only hope that you can see that this wicked Act is amended for people like us.
I plead with the Government to realise the colossal unhappiness of ordinary people who suddenly receive a massive bill which they cannot pay and which they are legally enforced to pay. I have dozens of letters like this. The Minister must have hundreds. Surely the time has come for the Minister to announce this afternoon that, for all cases concerning owner-occupation, the Betterment Levy will corns to a complete end?
I want: to make our policy about the Land Commission quite clear. It is very simple. We will abolish it in its entirety. Until we achieve that happy objective, I plead with the Government to see that owner-occupiers are excluded, and I want the Minister to make clear this afternoon that he has no intention, as he has the powers under the Act, to increase the levy either to 45 per cent. or 50 per cent. Originally, when the Government put forward this Measure, they took provision to increase it in two stages, from 40 per cent. to 45 pet cent. and then to 50 per cent. In view of the misery that it has already caused, we want at least a categoric assurance that this will not happen. We also want an assurance that he will not take advantage of the powers under the Act whereby, on the second appointed day he can give the Land Commission more powers of compulsory purchase than it has now.
The Land Commission had three objectives. The first was to produce the right sort of land at the right time. The figures show categorically that it has achieved little in that respect. The second objective was to ensure that the cost of land was reduced. The evidence is clear that it has been increased. The third objective was that part of the development value should be returned to the community. This the Government have done by the most enormously expensive method possible. We should like to

see the Commission abolished immediately. If it is not, swift changes must take place.
During the 13 years of Conservative government, home ownership in this country was encouraged by a whole series of policies. Unlike this Government, we fulfilled our housing targets. We reduced the stamp duty on house purchase. We abolished Schedule A. We revised the Profits Tax provisions to help building societies. We encouraged local authorities to enable council tenants to become owner-occupiers. This is in sharp contrast with the record of dismal failure on the price of houses, on mortgage interest rates and on the Land Commission of the present Administration.
The next Conservative Government will, at the earliest opportunity, abolish the Land Commission and the Selective Employment Tax and restore to local authorities the right to sell council houses to tenants who wish to buy them. We shall handle the economy in such a way that Bank Rate is not constantly at 7 or 8 per cent. We shall revise the mortgage option scheme so that it means something to far more people than a miserable 9 per cent. of those concerned. In total, we shall start to create a society in which people are encouraged and enabled to own a home of their own.

4.32 p.m.

The Minister for Planning and Land (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): First, I should like to offer felicitations to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) on his first major speech in his new rôle. I think that the House enjoyed his rumbustious manner, which went some way to concealing the nakedness of the case which he was seeking to deploy.
The timing of the Motion is more than a little curious on at least two counts. It seeks to censure the Government, first and foremost, because we have announced the abandonment of the target of 500,000 houses. This announcement was made not last week or last month, but more than 12 months ago, on 17th January, 1968, in this House, by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and again on the following day, publicly by my right hon. Friend. The reasons for our decision have been fully explained. Thus it would be hard to describe the first leg of the Motion as exactly topical.
The second count on which I find the Opposition's timing somewhat odd is that they choose to debate a critical Motion on housing and home ownership almost immediately after my right hon. Friend has announced a double record in housing. In the year just past a total of 414,000 houses were built in Great Britain—an all-time record. And within this total no fewer than 222,000 houses were completed for home ownership. This represents a new post-war record.
The House may find it illuminating to compare the present Government's housing record over the past four years with the Opposition's record during their last four years of office. The Tory Party is splendid house builders in opposition, but I want to consider what it did when it was in office. From 1965 to 1968 inclusive, a total of 1,586,000 houses were built compared with 1,274,000 under the party opposite in the years 1961 to 1964.
In short, during a four-year period we achieved well over 300,000 homes more than they did—an increase of nearly a quarter. When I remind hon. Members that this extra housing is roughly equal to all the houses in Leeds and Bristol together, it will convey some idea of the margin by which we have improved on the Conservative's record of housebuilding.
But I accept that this Motion is mainly concerned with home ownership and with, perhaps somewhat typically, the private rather than the public sector. We all remember how the party opposite used to stimulate the expansion of private house-building by restricting and cutting back on local authority housing. Even so, the best it could manage was 748,000 houses built for owner-occupiers in 1961 to 1964. We managed 842,000 in our four years—an increase of almost one-eighth—and this, as I have shown, despite a vast increase in local authority house-building.

Mr. A. P. Costain: To put the matter in perspective, would the Minister tell us the number of houses under construction when the Labour Party came to power?

Mr. Robinson: There can be no better perspective than a straightforward comparison—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—of the records over four years of both

parties when in power. Of course, it is true that starts were down last year.

Mr. Peter Walker: My hon. Friend asked how many houses were started when the Labour Party came to power. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the number was well over 400,000.

Mr. Robinson: This is not likely to have very much effect on the last two years of a four-year period, nor on the last three. These are the figures. While the Tories preached for years about creating a property-owning democracy, the Labour Government, by creating the right conditions, actually stepped up the rate of private house-building.
Nor, I repeat, has this achievement been secured by cutting back building by local authorities for those in social need. Building for those living in slums, the elderly, the overcrowded—a form of building shamelessly neglected by the party opposite—has been increased more sharply. During the last four years public authorities have completed 215,000 more houses than the Opposition in their last four years—an increase of over 40 per cent.
I would like to pay warm tribute to their achievements in new house building. Most of it has been concentrated in the 135 areas selected for priority with their programmes. For London, despite formidable difficulties over land, authorities approved tenders for just under 120,000 houses in the four years 1965–68, a rise of 50,000, or over two-thirds, on the previous four years. Therefore, we have something approaching an extra million people in new homes, about one-third of them in homes of their own.
If the Tories had remained in power, most of them would still be sharing with in-laws, or existing in overcrowded tenements or basements of slums rack-rented by Rachman and his kind. Slum clearance, too, has been on an upward trend in recent years, with about 90,000 houses a year now being cleared. Local authorities will be able to improve on this rate as shortages are steadily overcome.
Increased building for owner-occupation has, in fact, gone hand in hand with increased building by public authorities for those who could never afford to buy homes of their own. The result has been a new record total for house building in


Great Britain during each of the four years since we have been in office. These are not mere post-war records, but the highest figures ever achieved since records began—and, moreover, achieved at a time when the country has been passing through acute economic difficulties.
Great credit is due to the building societies who, in 1968, for the third year running, set a new record for mortgage lending. They advanced £l,578m. in 1968—a rise of £100m. on 1967. Although this does in some measure reflect higher house prices, the actual number of mortgages on new houses went up significantly during last year.
The year 1968 was not an easy one for the societies: they had to face a high rate of withdrawals for most of the year, and the net inflow of funds was disappointingly low until the last quarter. By running down their liquidity they managed to finance a new post-war record of completions.
Private house-builders, too, deserve great praise for their contribution. Throughout 1968 they had to put up with high interest rates, difficulties in some cases in obtaining bank credit to finance their operations, and all the uncertainties that followed devaluation. It was very difficult in the early months of 1968 to forecast which way the market for new houses would turn. But the builders kept on building and, as we now know, demand remained as strong as ever and, by the end of the year, completions had broken the previous record.
The Opposition's Motion talks of deterring home-ownership. Just how effective this deterrent has been is demonstrated by the 840,000 houses built for owner-occupiers. But perhaps I can list briefly some of the positive steps which the present Government have taken to encourage owner-occupation.
Our option mortgage scheme started on 1st April last year—it has not yet been running a year—and our mortgage guarantee scheme on the same day. The first gives borrowers who do not qualify for tax relief a subsidy of 2 per cent. on their mortgage interest payments. I would like to make one or two particular points about the second, that is, our mortgage guarantee scheme. This applies only to borrowers taking an option mortgage and is to help families who can afford

monthly mortgage payments but find it difficult to meet a substantial down payment towards the purchase price.
Building societies are normally prepared to lend only up to 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the valuation of a modern house. In some cases they have lent up to 95 per cent. provided that the extra amount has been guaranteed by an insurance policy paid for by a single premium. Under the new scheme, building societies are prepared to lend up to 25 per cent. of the valuation of the property over and above the normal amount they would have lent without insurance. The additional amount is guaranteed by an insurance policy in the way that higher than normal advances have been guaranteed in the past; but in this case the Government share the risk without charge, thus reducing the insurance premium.
It is true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that about 9 per cent. of new borrowers choose an option mortgage. We estimate that by the end of last November about 30,000 new borrowers had taken an option mortgage and about 160,000 existing borrowers had switched to the new scheme; while about 4 per cent. of new borrowers—about 10,000 householders—had taken advantage of the mortgage guarantee scheme.
The Opposition's Motion refers to the rising cost of homes, and the hon. Gentleman in his speech made a good deal of this. It is true—and we deplore it—that new private house prices have risen by almost a third during the four years we have been in office.

Mr. George Younger: Whose fault is that?

Mr. Robinson: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits for what I am about to say.
It may be that the improved building standards insisted on by the National House-Building Registration Council have contributed something towards this increase—[Laughter.] This is a perfectly valid point. Any hon. Member opposite who is in the building industry—and there are a number of distinguished representatives of that industry on those benches—will know that it is a valid point and that it may well have contributed something towards the increase. With the Government's backing, about


90 per cent. of all new private houses now carry the N.H.B.R.C.'s 10-year guarantee against faulty workmanship.
What is really remarkable, and what makes the Opposition's Motion not so much an irrelevance as an impertinence, is that although they did virtually nothing to provide safeguards against jerry-building the average price of new houses, mortgaged by private owners, rose during the Opposition's last four years more steeply than during our four years of office.
This is all the more remarkable when one remembers the great store which the hon. Gentleman, in his speech, set on such things as Selective Employment Tax and devaluation. Despite that, the rise has been less than during the last four years of the Tory rule.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Does not that prove that both Labour and Tory Parties are equally incompetent?

Mr. Robinson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to demonstrate that under a Liberal Government all would be for the best in the best of all possible worlds. For the moment all I want the House to note is that, here again, the Tory record is pathetic compared with ours.
There are also the new towns. Here, quite recently the Government have adopted a positive policy towards owner-occupation. As the House will know, we want to see a broad 50/50 split between rented and owner-occupied homes. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite now profess to be in favour of this policy, but they notably refrained from pursuing it when they were in office.
The Government, of course, deplore the worldwide rise in interest rates which has inevitably obliged building societies to raise their rates in order to remain competitive. The plain fact is that this country cannot reduce its interest rates unilaterally. Unless other countries reduce theirs, they are the only way of protecting our reserves.
As for the building societies, they have to remain competitive: they have to pay enough to their investors, who are mostly ordinary people and often owner-occupiers, to attract money, and also to ensure that money is not withdrawn

from societies and invested elsewhere. Early last year the volume of withdrawals demonstrated that the rates that they were paying to their investors were no longer competitive. If a mortgage famine had developed, not only would thousands of prospective house-owners have found themselves unable to raise a loan, but present owner-occupiers would have been stuck had they wanted to move house. Obviously, if building societies have to pay more to borrow money, they must charge more for the money they lend.
I have outlined to the House the record of our achievement on house building. But we are also protecting a continuing future rate of house building in the private as much as in the public sector by ensuring that land will be available.
This brings me to the Land Commission's activities, referred to in the last part of the Motion and in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I welcome unreservedly their inclusion in this debate, since it gives me an opportunity to remind the House of the purpose and objectives of the Commission and to answer the sustained and ill-founded campaign which is being waged against it by hon. Members opposite, and faithfully echoed in certain newspapers.
It also gives the House an opportunity to probe a little more deeply the Opposition's policy on all these matters. "We shall abolish the Land Commission", says the party opposite, and the hon. Gentleman added the other day, in a moment of optimistic exuberance, "within weeks of taking office". But that is not a policy; it is mere posturing.
How would hon. Members opposite secure the orderly release of land in areas of high demand? How would they try to control the supply of land in the interests of good planning? What is their attitude to the principle of Betterment Levy? I shall return to this in a moment. How would they avoid sharp increases in land prices due to scarcity of land for development? It is, indeed, the Opposition's proposal which would carry a grave risk of soaring land prices once again. There is no justification for the hon. Gentleman's claim that prices have risen as a result of the Land Commission.
The average annual increase in the price of land for private house building


in England and Wales has been far lower during our term of office than it was in the early 1960s, when the party opposite was in power. Indeed, the average price of land for public sector house building has been fairly stable during the period 1966 to 1968.
There will, of course, always be a few cases where high prices are paid, usually for small areas of land, and they are bound to get maximum publicity. Of course, there is no room for complacency, but the evidence of the last few years does not support the wilder allegations which have been made of a massive rise in land prices.
We established the Land Commission to ensure that the right land was available at the right price and at the right time. The Commission has been criticised because, so far, it has not bought much land. So far, it has completed the acquisition of 279 acres, but completion in land acquisition terms is the end result of what, hon. Members well know, is inevitably a long process. Where compulsory purchase, planning application and public inquiry are involved, it is bound to be longer still.
Negotiations for the acquisition of a further 2,100 acres are in hand. Further cases in which the Commission has approved action cover another 5,500 acres and many other cases, involving thousands of acres, are under investigation.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am not certain what the term "approved action" means. Does it mean that the Land Commission has sanctioned the commencement of negotiations or has approved the money?

Mr. Robinson: It means that action to acquire that quantity of land has been approved by the Commission. It does not, of course, mean that every acre of it will be ultimately acquired. This is already a sizeable and growing programme of land acquisition, but it is not by any means the whole story.
It often happens that as a result of the Commission's intervention, land is put on the market and made available for development which would not otherwise have become available for building. There have already been more than 100 cases, covering nearly 1,000 acres, in which the Commission's action has led

to land being made available in this way for development. Thus, the House will see that the acreage of land so far acquired is a fairly poor indication of the Commission's activity in its land operations.
It is only a beginning, because the processes of land acquisition are necessarily slow. They are slow because they are hedged around with safeguards for the landowner. Even if the Land Commission had rushed in to buy without first making careful study of the land situation and without completing its surveys of land availability, it could still not have acquired very much land in less than two years of operations. The bare statutory procedures for compulsory purchase, even if the case is unopposed, will take the better part of six months. If there was opposition, the period would be far longer—perhaps well over a year.
If hon. Members opposite criticise the Land Commission for not having acquired more land, one answer would be to remove these safeguards for landowners. I do not see any sign that this is what the Opposition want to do. Indeed, their attitude throughout the passage of the Land Commission Bill through the House was to object to the Commission's acquisition powers under the Bill. Never did they suggest that the procedures were too slow. Not once did they suggest that any safeguards for the owners of land should be removed. It is hardly for them to complain that the Land Commission should by now have acquired more land than it has.
Nor is the Land Commission's own activity confined to the purchase and sale to builders of land for development. The investigations which it has made of what land is available for development have been invaluable in enabling us to judge how best to ensure an adequate supply of land for housebuilding.
Another advance which we have made is to bring into existence a committee in which the Ministries, the builders, the building material producers, the building societies and the local authorities meet regularly to identify the physical and financial problems which arise on housebuilding in the private sector. This committee has existed only in the time of the present Government. Presumably, our predecessors on the benches opposite did not think that they needed to be


informed on such matters. With this information, however, we can ensure that the right land is made available for development through the Land Commission. It can co-operate with the local authorities, which, indeed it is doing.
When the planning authorities release land in planning terms, the Commission can buy it and then pass it on to builders as required. By so doing it will ensure that it does not go into the stocks of a firm of builders which already has an adequate supply of land and would, therefore, not use it for immediate development. Other building firms will thus get a chance which they might not otherwise have had to buy the land.
The Commission will also be able to phase the release of land so that the development takes place both in the right places and at the right time. This was all spelled out in the original White Paper on the Land Commission, and without the Commission there would be no means of meeting these objectives.
Our other main objective in establishing the Land Commission was to secure that a substantial part of the development value created by the community would be returned to the community.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Before he leaves the difficulties with which the Land Commission is faced concerning the release of land, will the right hon. Gentleman deal briefly with the clear conflict that there must be between the aims of the Commission, on the one hand, and the local planning authorities, on the other?

Mr. Robinson: That is a complete myth. It is one of the many myths that are rampant about the Land Commission. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have been listening only this afternoon, in a context to which I will refer presently, to a number of planning authorities saying how helpful they found it to cooperate with the Commission. One of the main jobs of the Commission is to assist, not to hinder, planning authorities.
I had turned to the other main objective of the Land Commission, to secure that development value created by the community is returned to the community. This is what the Betterment Levy is achieving. The first year's total was small

but the figures are rising rapidly. This year, the Commission will collect £8 million and next year should bring in not less than £15 million. There is no reason, once the transitional exemptions have worked themselves out, why the ultimate yield of the levy, in three or four years' time, should not be somewhere around the £80 million which was originally estimated.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is giving the United Kingdom figures. Can he break down the £8 million and £15 million between Scotland and England and Wales?

Mr. Robinson: I am sorry, not without notice, but I will ask my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary whether he can provide those figures for the hon. Member in winding up the debate.
Does anybody deny that it is a good principle that development value created by the community should, at least in part, be returned to the community? This is what the Betterment Levy is about.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Robinson: I have given way a large number of times. I still have a good deal to say and I do not want to detain the House inordinately long.
One of the reasons for the relatively slow build-up of the levy is that we deliberately made transitional provisions to give a smooth introduction to the new system. These arrangements succeeded. There was none of the disruption of the land market which the Opposition had confidently predicted. We gave exemption to people who owned single plots on which they wanted to build houses for themselves or their immediate family. We made special provision for stocks of land held by builders. Above all, we provided that where a development had been started before the first appointed day, 6th April, 1967, then, by and large, there was exemption from Betterment Levy. We gave long notice of this and widespread advantage was taken of it. The building of thousands of extra houses, as well as other projects of development, was begun before the first appointed day.
All this explains the comparatively low yield of levy in the first year or two.


But the Opposition can hardly complain now, since they never moved a single Amendment to reduce the exemption in these transitional provisions in the Land Commission Act. They wanted, and still want, wider exemptions. They cannot play it both ways by objecting now because the yield of the levy is not greater.

Mr. Eyre: Mr. Eyre rose—

Mr. Robinson: I am sorry, but I cannot give way.
In any event, the Opposition, while loudly proclaiming their intention to abolish the Land Commission, have been careful not to say what they would do about the Betterment Levy. The hon. Gentleman was true to form this afternoon. He was very careful not to say a word about what they would do about the levy.
In their master brief of November, 1967 the Opposition said:
Any increase in land values should be taxed in the same way as other capital gains".
Even there, they are careful not to say whether that means that gains from land would only be charged at the same rate as Capital Gains Tax. If they want to give up this source of revenue, then they should say so openly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend will make this clear in winding up tonight.
If they think that there is no case for the community recovering the betterment which it has created, then, again, they should say so openly, so that the country can judge between our two policies.
Of course, with any levy there will be individual cases which may seem hard. But where such cases demonstrated that the Act was not working as we intended, we have, on the recommendation of the Land Commission, announced changes. We have made concessions to deal with difficulties which arose over the interim period and the Land Commission is applying them. We shall be introducing legislation to give effect to these extra statutory concessions.
But I must emphasise that on the ordinary run of cases now arising where people realise net development value, they cannot plead to be exempted from their due liabilities, nor could the Commission exempt them just because they have not made financial provision for their liability. The Land Commission, in appropriate

cases, is willing to accept payment of levy by instalments.
The House will not expect me, nor my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, to deal in detail with individual cases of alleged hardship which have been or may be raised during the debate, but, of course, I will take up with the Land Commission any case that an hon. Member cares to raise with me. Let me just say, in general, that, though it is bound to assess and to collect levy in accordance with the provisions of the Act passed by Parliament, I have no doubt that it does so with humanity and with such flexibility of approach as the law permits.

Mr. Peter Walker: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned concessions. Is he saying that the only changes that are being made to the Land Commission are those announced a few weeks ago about single plots of owner-occupiers? Apart from that, is he saying that he can make no alteration, despite what the Chairman of the Land Commission has said?

Mr. Robinson: Concerning the Chairman of the Land Commission and the article in the Daily Mail which the hon. Gentleman quoted, that report, which followed a long interview given by Sir Henry Wells, provided a wholly distorted impression of what he discussed with the interviewer. It did not represent Sir Henry's views of the objectives of the Land Commission to which he has subscribed publicly on many occasions.

Mr. Peter Walker: In view of this—

Mr. Robinson: I am sorry, but I cannot give way again.

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Robinson: I chose my words with care. I say that this article gives a distorted impression of the Chairman's view, which he expressed in a long interview.

Mr. Peter Walker: Mr. Peter Walker rose—

Mr. Robinson: I will come to the hon. Gentleman's other point. I certainly have no further amendments to the Land Commission Act to announce today. The Act has been in operation for less than two years, with long transitional


provisions, and it is much too early to review the main provisions.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Sweeting case. I will say a word about that, because there has been far more publicity about that case than any other. Negotiations are going on and I am hopeful that the difficulty may be resolved quite soon to the satisfaction of both sides and within the terms of the Act. I am satisfied that the Land Commission has acted with understanding and a sense of fairness throughout.
Perhaps the most difficult area in the country for making land available is the area round the edge of London, the outer Metropolitan area. Demand for land for housing in this area is high, and it is a demand which comes from within the region itself.
I have this very afternoon had a meeting with the chairmen and chief planning officers of the county councils of eight counties in the outer Metropolitan area. Indeed, thanks to hon. Gentlemen opposite choosing this day for the debate, I had to put the meeting forward by an hour.
The purpose of this meeting was to follow up the announcement we made last year that it was necessary to provide land in the outer Metropolitan area for private housebuilding on a scale sufficient for the building of 35,000 houses a year for seven years. This is required to meet immediate need and to cover the period before the completion of the further study on the development of the South-East now being carried out under the chairmanship of the Department's chief planner, Dr. W. Burns.
Today's meeting with the local authorities was most constructive, and I am confident that, as a result, we shall get the release, in planning terms, of sufficient land for the private housebuilding we want to see.
In all this the Land Commission has a vital rôle to play in co-operation with the local planning authorities. This was acknowledged by the planning authorities at today's meeting.
The problems which the Land Commission is tackling are substantial and they will take time to solve. It has made a good beginning and, given time,

the success of its operations will be apparent for all to see. Without the Land Commission we shall not achieve the provision of land in accordance with good planning policies, nor secure the return of betterment for the community.
We have only to consider what happened when the Opposition were in power to see the advantages which a proper use of the Land Commission will bring. The Opposition removed the development charge provisions of the 1947 Act and allowed massive profits from land speculation to be made by land developers in the late 1950s and early 1960s. They stimulated one of the biggest booms in land prices we have ever seen, and they made sure that the community did not share in it.
After the return to market value in 1959, the process went on. The price of housing land more than doubled in the early years of the 1960's. This was the price the community had to pay for the refusal of successive Conservative Governments to tackle these land problems.
The present Government have had the courage to tackle them. We have not only achieved a record house-building programme, but we are ensuring the continuation of that programme into the future by seeing that the necessary land is available.
When we took office we inherited a dismal programme of new house building. The local authority programme had been ruthlessly cut back under the Selwyn Lloyd squeeze to fewer than 120,000 completions in 1961, and total completions had been allowed to dip below their magic 300,000 in 1963.
We said that we would give a greater priority to housing than ever before, and that is what we have achieved. Not just one freak year of 400,000 completions, but a sustained output over four years with each sucessive year setting a new record. This exceptional achievement, in the face of all our economic difficulties, has transformed the housing problem we inherited. An end to the housing shortage that has been with us since the end of the war is at last in sight.
By 1973, we should have a margin of about 1 million more houses than households. This should be just about enough


nationally to give us the 5 per cent. margin we need for mobility of labour and for the ordinary working of the housing market. Of course, local housing shortages are bound to perisist, particularly in London, and more than 1 million slums will have to be cleared. But the crude national housing shortage should then be over, and with it an end to spiralling house prices in both the new and secondhand markets. Supply will at last balance, and then exceed, demand, and what the market will bear will no longer be inflated by scarcity.
The Government's answer to rising house prices is to build enough houses to create a buyer's market, and we are well on the way to doing just that.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I think that my right hon. Friend might be wise to qualify his optimism, in view of the fact that Conservative councils all over the country are now starting to slow down starts in housing programmes, and beginning again to sell land in the public sector held by local authorities to their friends the speculative builders. This may affect the number of houses we are trying to produce for our people.

Mr. Robinson: I accept the main point of my hon. Friend's intervention, that this is the one: unknown factor. What I have said presupposes that the local authority contribution will continue roughly on the scale of the last few years. I sincerely hope that it will.
In comparison to all this, the Opposition's housing record is a sorry one. Not only did they cut back building by local authorities for those in social need, they could not even get a respectable output of homes to buy. Why did they fail so dismally in both the public and the private sectors? They professed to believe in a property-owning democracy. They did, in fact, create an office-owning oligarchy. I readily concede that their office building record far outstrips ours, but they chalked up that record at the expense of the would-be home owners who had so misguidedly put their faith in Tory promises. In the light of the facts that I have given to the House, I can only describe this Motion as a flatulent piece of fiction, and I confidently invite the House to reject it.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: We have listened to a characteristic speech from the right hon. Gentleman, a mixture of rhetorical phrases and calm, sweet reasonableness. I propose to follow his latter example, because I hope that we shall get more meaning out of the work of the Land Commission than will otherwise be the case. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for dealing with the Land Commission relationship in answer to a question I put to him.
I propose to limit my remarks to the second part of the 1967 Act, that part which is concerned with the acquisition, management and disposal of land. I am glad to see in his place the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who struggled so long and enduringly with this difficult piece of legislation. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is today looking at the outcome of his monumental labours. I think that he may be disappointed with many of the things that he sees, because the Government set off with high hopes for the significance and usefulness of that Act.
The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North said when we were discussing the Bill:
What we are at present concerned with is the supply of land and the price for land development.
Later he said that the purpose of the Bill was
to ensure that land is available at the right time for implementation of national, regional and local planning …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 608–9.1
I think it must be admitted that as yet the Commission has had little of a positive rôle to play in that respect.
In its first Report for the year to 31st March, 1968, the Commission said at paragraph 37—and this really contradicts some of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman—
… the Commission are an important addition to the planning machinery, for although Great Britain has perhaps the most sophisticated planning system of any country, it is one designed to control land use rather than to promote the development of land".
I think that that is the fundamental difficulty of the relationship between the Commission and its objectives and the duties and responsibilities of local planning authorities.
During the Second Reading debate in May, 1966 it was maintained from this side of the House that the idea of the Commission could be justified only on the ground that local authorities could not, or would not, exercise the powers they had to realise the objectives which were identical with those the Commission set out to achieve. I think that there is here a clear conflict of purpose between the Commission on the one hand and the existing procedures of local government and local planning on the other. The Commission has found—as Ministers have found—that the delays of local government procedures are inescapable for it, particularly where local authorities hold land or refuse to release it for planning or development.
At paragraph 31 of its Report, the Land Commission reiterated the point made by the right hon. Gentleman:
The areas of greatest pressure on land are also the areas in which planning policies tend to be most restricted and … some relaxation of these policies is required before the Commission can operate on a useful scale.
To what extent can the Minister influence local authorities? I am pleased to hear of the meeting that he had today. What he may be doing is using the threat of the powers of the Land Commission to influence local authorities to release land. The Minister smiles and shakes his head.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government is reported as having told the National House Building Registration Council on 21st November last that there were problems of making land available for private house building, thus repeating the allegation made by the right hon. Gentleman that land is being held back for development. The Minister of Housing and Local Government said at that meeting that it was the local authorities who had the great areas of land and had not released them for development, not the developers in the private sector. He said that local authorities were the biggest hoarders of land in the South-East, the West Midlands and the North-West. That contradicts what the Minister said today, that it is the private builders who are hoarding land. The Minister of Housing and Local Government also said that approaches had been made to local authorities, particularly in the outer

Metropolitan areas, to release enough land for 35,000 private houses to be built over a seven-year period, and perhaps this is the meeting to which the right hon. Gentleman referred earlier.

Mr. K. Robinson: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to be under any misapprehension. I did not say that there was hoarding. I said that the Commission's operations could ensure that when land was made available it could go to those builders who would use it immediately and not put it into their stock.

Mr. Jones: If the Minister looks at the record, he will see that he accused the private sector of hoarding land, and he also said that land should be taken from those who had years of supply and made available to those who could build on it at once. I see the right hon. Gentleman's point, but there is a contradiction here. There is a clash of interests between the Land Commission and local planning authorities and the threat of a conflict in their relationships, which would be most unfortunate.
Paragraph 25 of that same Report sayss:
The Commission may, in some cases, have to take the initiative and, if necessary, seek a decision from the Minister on appeal.
So, if the Commission is dissatisfied with the planning procedures of local authorities, it will turn to the Minister for backing. That would be a very unfortunate situation to develop between central and local government. The Land Commission has a rôle in hastening decisions by local authorities, having regard to the economic planning considerations, the use of the land, the availability of building resources and, essentially, the release of more land for development.
After all, it is the monopoly position of planning authorities, restricting the availability of land for development, which leads to high prices. This is the nonsense of the situation which the present procedures have caused. This is something which must enjoin action by the Government to prevent the situation becoming increasingly difficult. The Government should speed up the planning and appeal procedures. I have genuinely tried to see a rôle for the Land Commission and have concluded that there is none. I sympathise with the frustration and obvious difficulties faced by Sir Henry Wells and his colleagues. The


Government have been very persuasive all along, as was the Minister today, about the possibilities and potential of the Commission's work, but the fruits for which they hoped have not materialised.
The solution does not lie with the Land Commission. It is the Government's duty to speed up planning procedures and ensure greater availability of land. I can see no rôle for the Land Commission, especially with the proposed local government reform. I recognise that the Government are committed to the Commission and there may be a minor rôle for it in the interim, but in the long term there will be none.
We must remember the demand on resources which the Commission makes and that, up to last March, it had a staff of about 1,400, which is down now, I believe, to 1,200, but which included no fewer than 760 staff qualified in surveying, land valuation and so on, at salaries in excess of those paid in local or central government. This has played havoc with many of the staffs of local planning authorities and their valuation departments. The Commission has only a limited future and, in the long term, the Government's policy will prove to have been misdirected.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I regret much of the tone of the debate, and particularly that of the opening speech. It is extraordinary that there should have been this attempt to attack the Government's record in a housing debate when, on every criterion, with regard to the number of houses built or anything else, the Government's achievement is crystal clear. It is the peak of hypocrisy for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to attack the Government over the number of houses built.
It is proper for me to express my dissatisfaction that we have not achieved a higher figure and to tell my own Front Bench that I am dissatisfied that we should be moving away from our target of 500,000 houses a year, which I still believe is needed if we are to meet the urgent need for new houses. I give way to no one in my anxiety to overcome the need for housing, but hon. Members opposite have no right to voice an

opinion on this matter in view of their miserable record.
One has only to look at the figures to see the discreditable way in which hon. Members opposite ran down the local authority building programme—something which, under their stimulus no doubt, Tory authorities may be seeking to do again at this moment. No one can doubt the need for houses to rent, yet it was their policy, which they achieved, of destroying the local authority house building programme which contributed to that.
Any examination of the figures of houses built for sale shows that we have kept our promise not to increase local authority house building to the detriment of the great need for houses to buy. We have not only enormously increased the local authority house building programme but have also, I am glad to say, increased the number of private houses for sale. The figures for the past year, quarter by quarter, are enormously greater than when hon. Members opposite were in power.
But this is a matter not just of figures on paper but of human beings being rehoused who could not get a house before. Nothing that any hon. Member opposite says can get over that simple fact. Most people are concerned with those facts far more than with the vapourings of someone who comes on to the Front Bench and opens his first contact with this subject with the kind of speech which we heard this afternoon.

Mr. James Allason: The hon. Member wanted precise figures. Would he agree that if the private house building figures in 1964 had been continued in 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 33,000 more houses would have been built in the private sector than have actually been built?

Mr. Blenkinsop: What we are concerned with is facts and not the presentation of all kinds of ideas in the hon. Member's mind of what they would or would not have achieved. What we are conscious of is the efforts to alter the situation in the last year of run-up to the election to achieve a different situation from what had happened before. That does not alter the stark facts relating to what the Tory Government did. That


is what concerns the bulk of my constituents and the bulk of those who need housing. They judge us, quite properly, on our achievements.
I am far from saying that I am satisfied that we have done all that I want to see done. I want to see a considerable extension of what has been achieved but I recognise the value of what has been achieved. Hon. Members opposite who attempt to extract some party political benefit out of the case they have advanced this afternoon will find that it will not get much response outside, where people are much more concerned with realities.
I am concerned chiefly about the position of the Land Commission, which has suffered from the fact that it has been the subject of party political dispute since its initiation. It was impossible to get any clear idea of what right hon. and hon. Members opposite intended to do. Under the Tory Government there was a continual dispute between Ministers about their intentions in this sphere—for instance, whether they intended to allow private individuals to continue to get away with the swag arising from betterment, to which they had made no contribution, or in what way they intended to deal with this issue.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: As the hon. Gentleman keeps talking about facts and achievements, and as he obviously lends himself to the colourful picture which the Minister painted of how the Labour Government encourage home ownership, will he explain to the House why the Labour Government drastically curtail the amount of money which local authorities may lend on mortgage, thus preventing people from buying cheaper and older houses, upon which they cannot get a building society mortgage?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I should have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be the last person to put that point. Hon. Members opposite more than anyone else are pressing the Government to restrict the amount of money in circulation and the facilities available for local authority spending and lending. Again, I may regret this, as indeed I do, but the two-facedness

of hon. Members opposite is extraordinary. At one moment they demand that the Government should take far more rigorous action to restrict public grants and public lending. On the other hand, in individual cases they demand increased spending. I understand the difficulties associated with this restriction. I also understand Britain's present financial position. Until we achieve much greater financial independence in the world, we must face these restrictions, unfortunate though they may be.

Mr. Walter Clegg: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that before the Betterment Levy there was no tax on increases in land value? Were not profits from land and land realisation subject to Capital Gains Tax, Corporation Tax, Income Tax and Surtax?

Mr. Blenkinsop: The Capital Gains Tax was introduced by the Labour Government [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was in reality. I know that there was a nominal tax, as indeed a nominal rate relief scheme was introduced by the Tories, but it had no effect. It was typical of hon. Members opposite that they made some kind of face-saving operation which had no relation to reality. I am not satisfied that we have gone far enough in the way of Capital Gains Tax, but I shall not seek to extend the debate into subjects far beyond those covered by the Motion.
I come to the important issue of the work that I believe that the Land Commission can and should do. It is unfortunate that the Commission's whole operation has been bedevilled by the political arguments which started during the passage of the Bill which set it up and which has continued, unhappily, since it came into operation. I greatly regret that those who have this job to do must perform it in the most difficult circumstances.
The co-operation which the Land Commission could offer and has tried to offer to local authorities, planning authorities, and others, has not been made as much use of as many of us would wish. The very Amendments made to the Bill to meet some of the pressure applied by hon. Member opposite have delayed the operation of the Bill and have meant that funds which would normally have


come to the Land Commission have not been forthcoming. Many developers took the opportunity to acquire land well ahead of time so as to avoid levy. There is nothing improper about this. It is merely the fact. This meant that the Commission could not start effective operation until much later than many of us had hoped. Thus, the reality of the contribution the Commission can make has been delayed.
The Commission's first Annual Report shows the increasing volume of work which it is undertaking and the contribution which it can make. It was highly irresponsible of hon. Members opposite to announce their intention, if unhappily they ever have the opportunity of exercising it, of ending the Commission's work.
Two questions must be asked. First, does this mean that the Tories propose that we should revert to the miserable state of affairs which operated when they were in office, when no one knew what Tory policy was with regard to betterment value, and so on? That is the financial question as to where the increased value should go. There is the other question whether the Tories discount so completely the value of the work that the Commission can do in aiding local authorities and private developers to develop areas of land in a coherent and sensible way.
The Commission has acquired, during the short period it has operated, much information of immense importance. It would be an appalling tragedy if doubt were to be cast upon the continuance of its work. Nearly all planning authorities note the lack of information available to them about the ownership of properties, and so on. It is precisely in this area that the Commission can make a very useful contribution. It is a tragedy that this fact has not been as fully recognised as it should be. I place the responsibility, in part at any rate, on hon. Members opposite for the way in which they have made this a Party issue.
It is a tragedy that the contribution which the Land Commission was willing to offer has been regarded in such narrow party terms. Therefore, in view of the present political situation and control in many local authorities, alas they have not looked at the contribution which the Land Commission can make in a

coherent and sensible way. It is a very much greater tragedy—not just in political terms, which is a minor matter, but in terms of the welfare of the country and the actual question of the use of land—that this issue should be regarded in such a narrow way by hon. Members opposite when speaking on behalf of their party.
I am glad that now the Land Commission is showing in an effective way in the work it is doing the kind of operations it can undertake. I am glad that one of the first operations it undertook was in my part of the world, in the North-East. In a district adjacent to my constituency it was able to undertake work for the Houghton-le-Spring local authority. I regret that because of the provisions of the Act it was not possible for the Commission in most cases to make a contribution towards the cost for the local authority. I would have been happier, although I understand the questions involved, if, as many of us hoped would be possible, the Land Commission could pass on some of the value which comes eventually to it to the local authority instead of the value going to the Treasury.
I recognise, in spite of that, that the Land Commission can and does make a very important contribution, particularly where the local authority has to carry out a tedious and lengthy operation in determining who are the owners of a particular plot of land when the land is in multiple ownership, tracking all this down, and through a complicated lengthy process of compulsory purchase. The Commission can do it on behalf of a local authority. So far from this being against the interests of the private builder, in many cases it is in his interest.
In many cases land has been acquired by a developer without the intention of developing it in a reasonably short period. I ask whoever is to reply to the debate for the Government what information he can give about the actions of the Land Commission in trying to ensure that land which has been acquired in this way by potential developers is brought into active use at an early date. This is one of the objects of the Land-Commission. We know that there are many complications, complications to which, alas, hon. Members opposite are


sometimes the first to add. Very often the element preventing a builder from getting on and acquiring the land he wants is not the Land Commission but another developer who is in possession of land suitable for development but who is not prepared to develop it at that time.
I understand it is the intention of the Commission to proceed in such cases to try to secure the transference of the land from those who have no intention of early development to those who have such an intention. I should welcome this. I hope that my hon. Friend in replying to the debate will say something about this part of the Land Commission's work. I have pointed out in the past that local authorities do not get the advantage in price which I would like them to get in the development of areas of land. This might apply in the case of central area redevelopment.
I should also like to have information about circumstances in which the Land Commission has indicated that it might be able to help where certain parts of a larger area to be taken over are intended for "non-remunerative use"—that is to say, for open space or playing fields and general amenity purposes. This will be of increasing importance in the legislation that this Government are rightly introducing for the improvement of many older areas. I understand that where there are areas of that kind it may be possible in some circumstances for the Land Commission to pass certain financial advantages to the local authority. I should like to hear what progress is being made in that type of case.
Another type of case concerns the problem in which the Commission can make an important contribution in respect of redevelopment of derelict land. Many of us are much concerned that there are still such vast areas of dereliction and semi-dereliction which clearly need to be developed, and can be developed with the resources which are available. The National Coal Board through the opencast mining executive would be delighted to put to work some of the machinery they have for redevelopment of some derelict areas. The Land Commission could play a very important part here.
The Commission has been restricted by the limitation of its financial resources by

reason of the fact that it has not been able to acquire or sell the amount of land that it might have expected and to build up resources to enable it to move into this field of activity as quickly as was hoped. I ask my hon. Friends to look at this feature and to see whether the Commission could play an important part in the whole national programme of redevelopment of areas of derelict land which are important in the development areas of the North-East, the North-West and what are called the "grey" areas.
So far from wishing to end the work of the Land Commission, I want to see its possibilities of operation widened. There are certain restrictions on it at the moment which are utterly unreasonable. Some of those restrictions, I think, have been put there understandably to safeguard the position of the private owner and to avoid powers of acquisition being unreasonably used. Hon. Members opposite, with some of my hon. Friends, inserted those provisions, but now it is those provisions about which some hon. Members opposite are cavilling. I should welcome a provision which would help to overcome any of the hard cases which inevitably arise, but I suspect that often some individual hard cases have been used to cloak relatively vicious profiteering which used to go on in land values. Just as in the days gone by we always had quoted to us the case of the widow who owned property, we are given the view that these were the only people who ever owned property.
While we must seriously look at any cases of hardship, perhaps the time will soon arrive to review not only these cases but also this legislation from the other side of the coin. We must ensure that there is reasonable flexibility for the Land Commission to do the job we intended it should do and which it has shown, in its first year of operation, it can do if we cease our petty criticisms of it. It has an important task to perform for the nation as a whole.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. John Hunt: I welcome this opportunity to contribute to this important debate, particularly since my constituency of Bromley has felt the full impact of rapidly-rising land values and house prices.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) reminded the House of how in 1964 the Labour Party played up this issue. Hon. Members will recall how thousands of younger voters in our constituencies, particularly those who were about to marry and set up home, were wooed and won over by Labour candidates, not by the policies of nationalisation or comprehensive education, but solely by the prospect of lower mortgages and the promise to set up the Land Commission which, they were to d, would put a stop to speculation and reduce house prices. Today those young people are physically four years older and politically four years wiser.
There can seldom have been a more cynical exploitation of the hopes and ambitions of the younger generation than Labour's housing pledges to them in 1964. Our only hope is that the depleted benches opposite is an indication of the guilt which so many hon. Gentlemen opposite must feel at Labour's broken election promises.
For two years we have had the Land Commission. Far from lowering the cost of land it has increased it, just as Conservative spokesmen warned it would do at the last two elections. Despite what the Minister said, there is clear evidence that, for example, in the first auctions after the passing of the Act land was being quoted at about 40 per cent. higher than previously; in other words, quoted prices were reflecting the full cost of the Betterment Levy.
We have been told on a number of occasions—this was repeated today—that one of the main functions of the Land Commission was to bring on to the market land that was being deliberately held back by speculators. From what has been said and learned, that has proved to be yet another Socialist bogey. In the first year of its existence the Land Commission was not involved in any land transactions. It raised only £463,000 in Betterment Levy against an operating cost of well over £1 million.

Mr. Blenkinsop: When the hon. Gentleman speaks of the Commission not having been involved in any land transactions in its first year, is he aware that a certain time was necessary to start inquiries and obtain the necessary information

in advance of negotiations being conducted?

Mr. Hunt: I was coming to that. I acknowledge that it takes some time for a Commission of this sort to establish itself on a working basis. However, even if the Betterment Levy brings in the £8 million which is now estimated for the current year, and the £15 million which is estimated for the year after that, that will still be falling a long way short of the £80 million a year which was being quoted at one time and to which the Minister referred even today.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about returning money to the community, but the money which has been raised by this levy so far has, in the main, gone straight into the coffers of the Treasury and has made no constructive contribution to a solution of our land and housing shortages. That vast fund which we were told would be available for urban renewal has already been seen to be yet another image of Socialists' imagination. The disappointment and despair of the younger generation has been intense and universal. Had the Government deliberately set out to hamstring and alienate this section of the community, they could not have done it better.
During the past four years the cost of housing has rocketed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester pointed out, this has been a reflection not only of the levy but also of S.E.T., devaluation—which put up the cost of raw materials, and particularly building materials like timber and copper—and high interest rates, which have added substantially to builders' costs. My hon. Friend also referred to the staggering burden now falling on builders, who are having to pay a weekly contribution of 54s. 6d. per man employed as against 12s. 11d. when Labour came to power.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Did not the hon. Gentleman hear what the Minister said about rising house prices? While he has spoken of the increases which have taken place in the last four years—he said that prices had rocketed—would he care to describe the increases which occurred in the previous four years?

Mr. Hunt: The whole tone and content of Labour speeches in 1964 and 1966 gave the impression that the level of


house prices and the cost of land would be reduced. This has not been achieved and this is our charge aginst the Government.
In addition, the Government are severely curtailing the amount of money available to local authorities which wish to advance money for house purchase. In the next financial year there is to be a cut of £65 million which, I maintain, is as vicious as it is short-sighted. As has been pointed out, this will particularly hit young married couples of modest means who have hitherto looked to their local councils for help with the purchase of older property which building societies are often reluctant to finance. It is such houses which give these young couples a chance of their first foothold on the ladder of home ownership. In areas of high property values, such as my constituency, these older houses are often the only ones that young people in this category are able to afford.
We must remember that these advances for home ownership are financed by councils borrowing at normal rates in the ordinary money market. This is not subsidised welfare but an opportunity to help people help themselves. It also releases council property and other rented accommodation. One is reluctantly forced to the conclusion that this latest squeeze on home loans is another reflection of the Labour Party's well-known antagonism towards home ownership and that sense of security and independence which it brings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester quoted a number of tragic cases of people hit by the Betterment Levy. I wish to draw attention to a case of hardship and injustice which has arisen in my constituency as a result of the operation of the land Commission. This involves a young couple, Mr. and Mrs. Len Elliott, who were given a small plot of land by an elderly lady who wished to help them. They applied for planning permission before the Land Commission came into existence, but owing to an initial refusal of planning permission by Bromley Council and the time taken by a subsequent appeal to the Minister, which was upheld, the Act came into effect before their bungalow could be built. The land was then valued by the Land Commission at

£2,000, and Betterment Levy of more than £700 has now been demanded from Mr. and Mrs. Elliott.
That case and others cited in the debate highlight one of the major flaws and injustices in the Land Commission Act, that levy is demanded on a notional assessment of betterment even though no actual profit is made by the owner of the land. I accept, as I am sure that many of my hon. Friends accept, that there is a case for taxing profits from land development. But the time to impose a levy on people like Mr. Elliott is when they sell and move, not when they have to find the levy out of their modest income or savings at an early stage.
The purpose of the Land Commission was said to be to hit speculators and to reduce the price of land. Instead, it has increased the cost of land and hounded men like my constituent who just want the chance to stand on their own feet, to be subsidised by no one, and to be left alone. The Minister said that he would take up cases of individual hardship which were brought to his attention. I asked him here and now to look into that specific case in my constituency. I hope that something can be done to remedy the injustice which these people have suffered.
The Motion rightly refers to the damaging activities of the Land Commission which are deterring the spread of home ownership. The many thousands of people in this country who have been hit by the monstrous betterment levy will echo that judgment, and so, I hope, will the House tonight.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I feel that I must tiptoe into this languid and soporific discussion. It is an awful anticlimax to me. At one time, my critics were so fierce that I thought that I should get off lightly if I only suffered impeachment. Whatever the dissatisfaction, it appears to be very muted. All we have is a feeble side-kick in a woolly, wishy-washy Motion before the House.
I pay tribute to the chairman of the Land Commission and to its distinguished members. I pay tribute to them for what they have done in what everyone who had anything to do with the legislation realised would be a difficult initial period.


I say in passing to the hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt) that it is no good constantly saying that the levy is increasing the price of building land. It is not. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] No, it is not. We have for the first time—this is one of the important results of the Land Commission's work—a depository of information about land prices, and Sir Henry Wells has said that the levy has not in general increased the price of building land. He is in the most authoritative position to give an opinion about it
I agree that there may be cases—I shall say a word about them—in which it appears that a developer is being held up to ransom. I should like to know what the developer has done. One of the important changes which the Land Commission Act brought about is that we have for the first time compulsory purchase backing for private development as well as public development. If developers feel that they are being held to ransom, my advice is that they go and see the Land Commission immediately.
Now, the levy itself. A great deal has been made about the initially low return of the levy. This, of course, was expected. One of the few matters upon which, I think, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) was sympathetic towards me was the extension I made of the exemptions when we brought the Land Commission into operation. It is generally accepted that those exemptions were fair. I think that we can say, too, that they have had the byproduct of bringing a good deal of land forward for development.
One could have been harsher. One could—I emphasise this—have introduced retrospective legislation at least to the point of the White Paper. There are plenty of respectable precedents for that. But, when we have a change such as this, I believe one should be as equitable as possible, phasing the introduction as smoothly as possible. That is what we did. However, if hon. Members complain about the amount which has been received, we can always consider, as we said in the White Paper, the rate of the levy. It is easy to increase the return. But, again, reviewing the past two years, one must accept that this was a modest and fair rate of levy, and it has been generally accepted.
Bringing the figures up to date, one finds that this year there has been an 18-fold growth in the return from the levy—a very satisfactory growth rate. We finish this last year with more than £8 million received by way of levy. It is now not I but the Chairman of the Land Commission himself who now says that in a few years the levy return will be £80 million.
In short, what is happening, and happening rapidly, is that artificially created values are now being artificially reduced. Now, a substantial part of the value created by the community is being returned to the community. That is the political issue. I welcome the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) to the Front Bench on this subject, because his predecessor took a very different view. His predecessor said that he was also against the Capital Gains Tax, that it was a "dud" tax, and, since he was speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, I took it as authoritative.
Now, the hon. Member for Worcester has made quite clear that, in spite of a lot of blather from the Opposition about abolishing the Land Commission, they will not abolish the levy. So the electorate will feel themselves very much misled when, after all the propaganda, they find the Tory Party accepts, as most sensible people in the country accept, that fundamentally the levy is right.
I shall come shortly to the cases which hon. Members have mentioned, but the fact is that the system has worked remarkably smoothly. We know that of all the assessments which have been made only about 1 per cent. have been challenged. This was a controversial matter. It is remarkable that in 99 per cent. of cases the assessments have been accepted. It is a remarkable achievement, but I accept that there appear to be—one cannot say more than that because we see only Press reports from a fairly extensive Press haul of Land Commission cases—some cases of unfairness.
I remind my right hon. Friend that within the Act itself there is provision for postponing the collection of levy, and there is also the express provision which we made, anticipating such cases, that by Order we can make further exemptions. The important consideration, as my right hon. Friend said, is that we


should look at these cases sympathetically. The purposes of the levy are well understood, and no one is anxious to be unfair.
It appears to me that, probably, there are three categories of case in which there has been difficulty. The first arises from the interim period. People acted in ignorance of the provisions of the Act. It was not our fault. We tried our hardest—it is not the Opposition's fault either, because they tried equally hard—to make sure that everyone knew what the provisions were, and, as I have said, although it has often been done, we were anxious to avoid legislation made retrospective to the date of the White Paper. Also, I am sorry to say, these cases very often seem to have been the result of bad professional advice. However, in spite of that, one has still to consider cases of personal hardship, and the Government have given an undertaking that concessions will be made. That is one category of case. I think that everyone accepts that we made fair provision, but if nevertheless as a result there are individual cases of hardship arising, let us look at them.
The second group of cases seems to touch the question whether the exemptions which we have already made about single family dwelling houses go wide enough. I do not see why we should not look at this second category. Thirdly, a different kind of question is whether there should be any de minimis provision. We discussed this when we considered the Bill, when I believed that there should be no de minimis provision. We did not then have any experience. This is largely a practical question. Now, I do not know what that experience indicates but I am sure that it is a matter which the Land Commission will consider.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that things are not working in the way he expected. Surely, the time has come for the Government to make decisions in the two spheres to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, whereas the Minister this afternoon announced categorically that he had no intention of altering the Land Commission.

Mr. Willey: The hon. Member has, I think, misinterpreted my right hon. Friend. I said, incidentally, that when

one introduces comprehensive legislation such as this one is under a duty to keep it under constant review. One cannot legislate for all cases.
As to the second objective of the Land Commission—to ensure that the right land is available at the right time—here again the Commission can demonstrate that it is going ahead. Its growth rate is not so good, but, if my arithmetic is right, it is fivefold. That is not insubstantial. My right hon. Friend the Minister talked about land in terms of acres. I calculated roughly the value, and I think that one would value the land at £20 million-£25 million. A considerable amount of land is, therefore, in process of being acquired by the Commission.
I agree with the Chairman and the Commission that it is a bit thick to be criticised for proceeding slowly by the very people who were so critical of the possibility of the Commission resorting to accelerated methods of land purchase. I do not criticise the Commission. The position was that the land was coming forward for development and the Commission has acted reasonably and sympathetically.
My criticism arises from a different approach. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop). I think that we should concentrate—I am sure that the Chairman of the Commission will agree with me on this—on the positive rôle that the Commission has to play and express disappointment, whatever the reasons may be, that so far its progress has been relatively slow.
I know that the issue is presented as an acute, sharp political difference between the parties, but that is not the case. It is really a question of whether we want to take a more constructive, positive view of planning as a whole. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) used to attack me because we did not deal with planning. I assured him that we would. We have now dealt with it. There is still, however, a rôle for an executive arm to planning. That is what the Land Commission is doing. I would encourage it to do much more. Again, to express this differently, there is the idea of the land bank, which is not the preserve of


hon. Members on this side but was put forward by the Civic Trust and by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). If we are thinking of the work of the Land Commission in this context, we cannot be altogether satisfied that it is not getting ahead fast enough.
Again, there was the idea of a national agency which the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) raised when he was on these benches. Again, if one is concerned about this, one would like to see the Land Commission going ahead more quickly. I would say, certainly to my colleagues on these benches who committed themselves to undertakings in their election manifestoes, that we should be disappointed in what has been achieved so far. We envisaged the Commission being the main agent for acquiring land for building.
I appreciate and understand why progress has been relatively slow. I know the difficulties about acquisition. I know that, as in the case of the levy, this will accelerate as we go along. I would like to see more signs, however, of the specific rôle of the Land Commission in bringing forward land for development at the right time. The Commission, in its Annual Report, records that I indicated to it the scale and priorities of its operations. The Report records that I said that its objective should be to build up the scale of its acquisition programme within the first two years as rapidly as possible. I feel that this has not been done and that we should have progressed much more rapidly.
Now that the Commission has overcome the initial difficulties, I hope that, with the encouragement of the Government, it will now break through and do much more to ensure that we regard planning not only as regulatory, but positive, and that we get the right development in the right place at the right time.
As its Annual Report records, I also asked the Commission to make land available to housing associations on concessionary Crownhold terms. This has not been done. I know the difficulties. The hon. Member for Crosby and I discussed them in Committee. This, however, is something which should have been done. It is certainly one way of reducing the price of land for housing.

We would be far happier if we had examples of concessionary Crownhold.
The same applies, incidentally, to Crownhold as a whole. The Land Commission states that it will resort to Crownhold in the case of Church sites and like cases. I would like it to try a much wider use of Crownhold, particularly in the case of comprehensive development.
I emphasise all this because it affects price. I am afraid that a lot of nonsense is talked about land prices, but the activities of the Commission can in fact affect prices. When the Commission acquires land, it does not repay the levy to anyone. I took good care to ensure that it did not pay anything to the Treasury but should buy the land at the Commission's price. This is very much a key to the operations of the Land Commission.
As the Chairman of the Land Commission—I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will assure me that this is a correct quotation and that there has been no misrepresentation—has said:
We can buy land 40 per cent. cheaper than local authorities because we buy net after deducting the levy. This provision may enable us to cheapen the price of sites, for either private or local authority housing development by increasing the supply. Although we have to get the best price reasonably obtainable, the 40 per cent. advantage gives us a margin if. by increasing the supply of land, this price is reduced, without financial embarrassment to us.
That is important.
Apart from the broad planning grounds which should compel us to make greater use of the Commission, we should also make greater use of it because this could have an impact on land prices. I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist the Treasury, which, naturally enough does not wish to lose the proceeds of the levy. We are concerned, however, also with land prices.
I repeat, therefore, as I said at the outset, that the whole House should pay tribute to Sir Henry Wells and his colleagues for surviving a difficult initial period without upset and with only few cases being produced which, as I have said, we should consider sympathetically. No one wants to cause undue personal hardship. In setting up the Commission we had two clear objectives which I believe are generally accepted and I


hope that having overcome the initial difficulties, the Commission will now be given a clear go-ahead from the Government.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I humbly echo the tribute paid by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) to the working of the Land Commission itself. It is not the members of the Commission who are unpopular in this context. I am satisfied that they are working as humanly and humanely as possible in dealing with the many cases which come before them. The fault is the miserable piece of legislation which the right hon. Gentleman himself successfully piloted through the House. It is a very difficult piece of legislation. It is contentious and sets a tremendous problem for those who have to administer it. It is for that reason, if for that lone, that I add my tribute to the Commission.

Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman really cannot make such a division. The Chairman and the Commissioners have said that they fully support the principle enshrined in the Act.

Mr. Baker: They have been appointed to carrying out a job and are doing so to the best of their ability. I was criticising the legislation which gave them the job in the first place.
This is a United Kingdom debate, and one is often tempted in such a debate to try to score party points. But I maintain that in this one we should have had a Scottish Minister present who understands what is going on in Scotland. The Land Commission Act was a United Kingdom Measure, but in this debate we have only English Ministers from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Following an intervention I made, the Minister of Planning and Land said that he would obtain information on a specific point. I am grateful to him and look forward to it with interest. I would like to have gone into several points in some detail about the work of the Commission in Scotland, but I had better leave some of them out and write to the Scottish Minister concerned.
If I were asked to describe the Land Commission Act, three "Cs" would come to mind—cumbersome, complex and constrictive. The Act is, first,

cumbersome because of the various ways in which the Commission itself has to carry on its work. Paragraph 8 of the Report and Accounts of the Commission for the year ended 31st March, 1968, says:
On the levy side also, the process leading from the transaction to the collection of levy may well take up to seven months in a straightforward case. When assessment is disputed, a much longer period can elapse before the amount due is received.
Hon. Members opposite have criticised us for saying that we are not in favour of the Betterment Levy—that we would rather have it taken by the taxation system. If it is done through the ordinary tax return—that is, through taxation on the gain in value by development—it is a simple method and it will not take seven months, but very much less.
Secondly, the Act is extremely complex in its operation. I know a small firm of solicitors in Central Scotland consisting of three partners. Such is the complexity of the legislation that they have decided that one partner shall be occupied entirely on dealing with questions of the Land Commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), when the Act was in Committee here, described it as a lawyer's paradise, and that is true.

Mr. Clegg: It is a lawyer's nightmare.

Mr. Baker: That is equally true. It is for that reason that one partner in the firm is working almost entirely full time on problems of the Land Commission.
Thirdly, the constricting aspect of the Land Commission is that, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said, land is not coming forward for development because of the levy. I advised a constituent who saw me on this point not to sell a piece of land for development until two years or so had elapsed, because I am certain—and I warmly welcome the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) to this effect—that as soon as we are back in power we shall abolish the Land Commission and all it stands for.
I shall refer to the Report of the Land Commission for its first year of operation as it applies to Scotland, but not in as much detail as I would have done had a Scottish Minister been present. Paragraph 27 refers to the requests that the Secretary of State for Scotland made to


the Land Commission at the outset. One of these requests was that it should make available more land for development for private housing. I applaud that.
The right hon. Gentleman asked that the land be made available particularly in Central Scotland. He asked that it be made available so that an increase of 50 per cent. could be made in the current rate of private housing building in Scotland. This in itself is to be welcomed, particularly as council house rents in Scotland are so low and place such a tremendous burden on the local ratepayers. I hope that this will be one of the marginal benefits of the Act in Scotland.
Some hon. Members have referred to a likely conflict between local authorities and the Commission in purchasing land. In general terms, do the Government visualise the Land Commission implementing such parts of the planning procedure as are now in the formative stage in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill, specifically in relation to area plans? This is important.
The other general question is, in what relationship does the Commission stand to the Crown Commissioners? It may be said that this is covered in the Act, but it is anything but clear, in my submission. Paragraph 36 of the Report refers to it partially, as does paragraph 50. Paragraph 36 states that
… the Crown is not bound by the Planning Acts …
This in itself is clear. But paragraph 50 gives a list of bodies exempt from paying levy, and they include Crown bodies. Does this refer to the Crown Commissioners?
I want to refer also to two cases of hardship which have come to my notice. The first involves a middle-aged executive officer who works for a widely known national firm. He is getting on now to retirement age. He has about nine years to go and recently was moved South by his firm. Before moving he bought a house, to which he intends to retire. Being a canny Scot, he decided to let his house for eight years. It is true that ignorance of the law is no excuse. This man, hoping to put a little something more on the side towards his retirement, let his house for £102 per annum. He

was immediately faced with a levy of about £325 before he had received a penny in rent.
I maintain, and have maintained throughout, that this is manifestly unjust and unfair. I hope that even now the Government, in looking at this legislation will examine this point. The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North and the Minister dealt with exemptions under the single family dwelling-house. I hope that when the Minister examines this he will take another look at a specific problem which affects England and Wales as well as Scotland.
I refer to the case of the father who wishes to house his son at his farm and utilises some of his own land to build a small dwelling-house for him. Under the Act, that development is subject to levy. This is unfair and, in a certain limited sense, is causing even more depopulation from Scotland, which is something, as my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell), on the Front Bench will recognise, which we cannot afford.
I want to raise one case which is a very niggling one and which has caused a great deal of concern. There is not a lot of money involved, but it is something which can really put a businessman up the wall. This occurred in my constituency in the area of Craigellachie which is a small village on the banks of the Spey. This firm, which wrote to me, had a number of employees living in the area but working elsewhere in the county. Many of them had to leave their cars in the road overnight simply because there was no garage accommodation. The firm for whom these men worked cleared and levelled ground at a cost of £20. Planning permission had already been granted, but after discovering that the cost of the buildings it intended to erect, with the conditions laid down by the local authority, were prohibitive, which would make it necessary to charge rents beyond the means of the local people, it decided to discontinue the development.
The total cost of levelling the ground, searches for title, etc., came to £84 5s. Having decided not to go ahead with this, the firm sold the ground for £100. Before Betterment Levy was imposed, it had to deduct from that £100 the expenses it had incurred in investigating


how to make use of the land. The Land Commission said that the only expenses which it could charge were those of levelling the ground, namely £20, plus surveyor's fees of 10 guineas, making a total of £31 10s. The Land Commission claimed that the base value of the land should be £31. If that is added to the allowable charges of £31 10s. it makes a total of £62 10s. which the Land Commission claim is the sum which has to be deducted from the selling price of £100 before the levy is chargeable.
The firm maintains that according to its computations it has incurred expenses of £84 5s., to which should be added the sum of £31, being the base value prior to the sale. This makes a total of £115 5s. On the whole transaction, the firm makes a loss of £15 5s. These are small figures in the light of the enormous sums with which the Land Commission is dealing. The firm agrees that the loss incurred was its own fault, but it asks, and I entirely agree, why should it be taxed on a loss? It seems to be against all principles of justice. This is a small but niggling case, the kind of thing which is causing grave annoyance, disquiet and to a certain extent, injustice.
It is for this reason that I shall take the greatest pleasure in supporting my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Lobby tonight, when they vote on this Motion.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Robert Howarth: I can only assume that the lack of support on the benches opposite for the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) is an indication of his hon. Friends' lack of feeling on this subject. The whole thing has gone off at half-cock. This motion is so ridiculous that his right hon. and hon. Friends do not believe it, either. I can only assume that the Opposition had something else in mind—who knows, motor taxation, or something like that?—but that they decided, in view of the fiasco that one of their hon. Friends has made of that, that it would be better to try another tack. Their lack of enthusiasm betrays their real feeling.
I begin by congratulating the Government and my right hon. Friends, and all who have been closely involved, in what

is, by any standards, a tremendous achievement in housing. This record of achievement which began in 1964 is well worthy of praise. The figures given by my right hon. Friend certainly took the wind out of the speech by the right hon. Member for Worcester. In every direction he had the ground knocked from beneath him.
I have the pleasure of representing an old Lancashire town, in which I have always lived. It is one of a number of towns which has been cruelly treated by industrial development, leaving us with a legacy from which my generation and others are still suffering. I often wonder whether many of those hon. Members opposite who live mainly south of London have any first-hand knowledge of the conditions in some of the older industrial towns. I suspect that some of them did not even know about the constituencies for which they were adopted until they were adopted. They pay their visits and then are happy to return to the comfortable areas of the Home Counties, or Kensington or Chelsea. This is reflected in the contributions we have had from them today, which have related only to a very narrow part of the Motion and have in no way attempted to justify the Opposition's attack.
The Government's achievements are there for everyone to see, certainly in areas like South Lancashire. A tremendous difference has become apparent during the last few years to anyone like myself who lives in South Lancashire, where the scene is being transformed by industrial development, new roads, new schools, new hospitals and, above all, new houses. My experience and that of people living in the area is that one cannot drive for many miles on a major road in Lancashire without coming across a major new road being constructed or proof of the great expansion in house building, which is borne out by the facts and figures given by my right hon. Friend. It is an eye-opener to drive east or west, south or north and to see the extent of Government-supported building which is literally transforming South Lancashire.
Ours is a record of which we can be justly proud. Of course, it costs a great deal of money. I noted with interest the challenge of one of my hon. Friends to an hon. Member opposite who talked


about a reduction in money made available by local authorities for home loans. He referred to the great contrast between the cries of the leaders of the Conservative Party for a reduction in Government spending and the great eagerness of back bench Members opposite to call for additional Government spending.

Mr. Clegg: Would the hon. Gentleman admit that the money provided to people for house purchase is loaned? It is not given to them by way of subsidy; they have to repay it. How will the Government's cuts affect Lancashire, where such loans are particularly valuable because of the older properties there which our constituents have to buy?

Mr. Howarth: The first house I bought many years ago was purchased through a local authority mortgage. I know only too well the value of local authority mortgage facilities. I should have thought that, in view of the amount of money which has been made available by building societies in the last few years and the availability of these loans, the cuts will not have a serious effect on the position.
I read the handout from the Building Societies, Association, which expresed confidence in being able to meet the demand for home loans in 1969. The Government ate in the process of introducing measures, which will be debated on Monday, which will help to offset that problem and which will contribute to an improvement in the quality of life which people have enjoyed over the last four years, due to the Government's activities.
I turn to the Government's great achievements in building houses. Not only have more houses been built by this Government than were built by any other Government in our history, but the quality of housing is better than it was at any other time. I wish to deal with the question of the additional numbers of houses built. Some years ago, I was privileged to take part in group discussions on housing with the then Minister of Housing, the present Secretary of State for Social Services. He outlined the Government's policy as being the balance between houses built for renting and houses built for owner-occupation.
There is no doubt that the deliberate depression of the number of houses built by local authorities by Conservative Governments

prior to 1964 was having, and has had, a very serious effect on the slum clearance problem. Coming from and representing a South Lancashire town, I know only too well what that means. We see from the figures given by my right hon. Friend how the increase in local authority building has greatly stepped up the slum clearance problem. This is a tremendous achievement.
I am equally pleased that in 1968 a record number of houses were built for owner-occupation. Coming as I do from an area where owner-occupation is, rightly, a commendable ambition of many people which I would encourage, and which the Government have encouraged, this is to be welcomed. Whatever district of my town I go to, I see new estates of houses being built for owner-occupation. The figures speak for themselves and fly in the face of the Opposition's ridiculous Motion. What has been done is to the Government's credit and it is undoubtedly one reason why there is little enthusiasm on the benches opposite for the Motion.
I mentioned the great assistance given to householders through rate relief measures. These are of great value to many people in my constituency. Only a few months ago I had a case of a divorcee who was maintaining her two children. She worked, but, clearly, the rates were quite an item for her. Under the Government's rate relief measures, she received nearly £40 a year for rate relief. This is quite a large sum of money. Examples of the sort of assistance which people are receiving, depending on their circumstances, can be duplicated all over the country.
Great assistance is being given to local authorities by the Ministry of Housing and Local Goverment for rate relief. But for the measures of the Government, the increase in rates would have been quite considerable. But last year, this year, next year and the year after, the offset to keep down the domestic rating amounts to 5d. a year. This has been of considerable value to all local authorities, many of which are Conservative controlled. For them to start squealing about having to raise their rates is ironical in view of the great assistance which they are receiving from the Government to keep rates down. These are facts which, unpalatable as


they are to the Opposition, are helpful to our constituents.
We have tremendously increased housing subsidies, and this has led to increased clearance of old houses. I wonder whether hon. Members on the Opposition benches, who live in the salubrious counties, really understand the problems of older towns, where there are acres upon acres of old terraced houses, two up, two down, which were built in the last century. These houses have no modern conveniences; many of them have not even cavity walls. These houses must be cleared away if our people are to have decent homes and the Government by their efforts are speeding up the replacement of old houses by new local authority housing. The figures speak for themselves, and this is a record of which Members on this side are proud.
I have had this week the answer to a Question which I asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government: what had been the increase between 1964–65 and 1967–68 in all grants to the County Borough of Bolton. I was pleased to note that the total grants had risen from just under £4 million in 1964–65 to over £6 million in 1967–68. This figure is considerably increased for the current year, and it is proposed that it will be further increased next year. The Government have thus given important support to local authorities in housing, education and roads. This is the record on which the Government should be judged.

Mr. Peter Walker: Did the hon. Gentleman also ask what was the extra cost of borrowing to the Bolton county borough?

Mr. Howarth: I am aware of the increased cost of borrowing. I also know how it rose during the period of Conservative government. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it went down during that time. Interest rates are historically high at present, and it is hardly likely that they will go down in the near future, while the international rates are so high.
The assistance given has increased by over 50 per cent. in three years. New houses and new roads are being built, and changes are coming about which

result in a better life for those who live in what was an old industrial area.
1 would like to have commented on the additional assistance proposed by the Government in the Housing Bill, which is to be debated on Monday. The Bill gives to local authorities additional assistance and powers so that help may be given to improve older areas of towns, the so-called grey areas, and to transform old houses into decent homes. The Bill gives to local authorities powers which were being asked for in the 1950s and early 1960s. We might just as well have asked for the moon as to ask a Tory Government for the sort of assistance and imaginative and helpful proposals that are contained in the Bill.
The fair rent measures of the Government have resulted in rent officers being appointed. Which Member of Parliament has not had a constituent who has been able to go to the rent officer to have his rent adjudged on a fair basis? This has been of great benefit. This is the progress which has been made by the Government on behalf of ordinary people and, often, in the face of bitter opposition from Conservatives.
Not only have we built more houses during the last four years than were built in any period of Tory government, but the standards have been higher and the facilities provided in the homes have been better. Many hon. Members will be aware of the increasing insistence on local authority houses being built to Parker-Morris standards, which will ensure that they will be adequate in the early part of the next century.
I have taken a great deal of interest in owner-occupied houses. I wish to see the extension of owner-occupation nationally and in my constituency. I have been much impressed by the work of the National House-Builders Registration Council. This is a voluntary body which is gradually extending its coverage and is giving to house purchasers a valuable service. The last segment of the market is proving difficult to embrace within the scheme, and I have on previous occasions suggested that we are possibly approaching the time when there should be a statutory basis for the protection offered by the N.H.B.R.C. to house purchasers. I am in favour of a voluntary organisation controlled by the building


industry, rather than a Government body, but it may be that the Government could give asistance, financial and otherwise, to extend and intensify the protection afforded.
The Council has only a limited number of inspectors, and this makes it easier for unscrupulous builders to avoid their responsibilities. Will the Government consider whether there is a way in which they can assist the Council in its work? The best way would be a grant to the N.H.B.R.C. to enable it to increase its facilities, but not in any way to make it a Government body; there are great merits in it remaining a voluntary body within the industry.
I would wish to have commented on the special position of London, but it is not for me to move into an area that is of particular interest to other hon. Members. I confirm the claim of my right hon. Friend, who reminded the Opposition spokesmen that, while they may not have built a record number of houses during their period of office, they certainly were record builders of office spaces.
When I travelled from Lancashire to London before becoming a Member of this House, I was staggered by the sight of the great office blocks which could be seen rising in London, especially considering the paucity of evidence of the building of hospitals and other important things for the community. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite allowed the speculative building of offices because it was profitable, yet the number of hospitals built by them during their period of office was five or six; and that was only too noticeable to someone travelling from the provinces to London.
The position today is quite different. One can hardly go to any part of the country, especially the old industrial areas, without seing firm evidence of the increase in hospital, school and house building. If it is sufficiently known, the record is one which will bring its own reward in support for the Government, and I think that it behoves all hon. Members on his side of the House to ensure that their constituents know of the work done by the Government on their behalf.
As a result of just over four years of Labour government, there are more houses for rent than ever and more for sale than ever. In addition, they are built to better standards. There has been an

accompanying increase in all the other aspects of life which are so important and which undoubtedly are transforming the scene in areas such as that which I have the privilege of representing.
I have no hesitation in calling for the rejection of this quite ridiculous Motion.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: The hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) cast doubt on the presence of these benches of any hon. Member with a deep knowledge of the industrial areas. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a felicitous coincidence that I should be called to follow the hon. Gentleman, since I was born in the town which he represents and lived there for 20 years. In fact, before coming to this House, all my working life was spent in the industrial areas of Lancashire. I suspect that the same can be said of my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg). In view of the fact that there was no other hon. Member on the benches opposite as the hon. Gentleman spoke, perhaps it was an unfortunate moment at which to make that point.
I will not follow his arguments, other than to draw attention to one specific aspect of the operations of the Land Commission which arises from the provisions relating to the interim period and the effect that they have had on a Lancastrian who is a constituent of mine. Having done that, I shall refer to the attitude that the Minister has adopted to my attempts to protect individuals from the imposition of grossly unjust taxation. My comments arise from the experience of my constituent, Mr. Kershaw, but they have a much wider implication, as will be seen when I outline his experience.
Mr. Kershaw bought land in March, 1967 for use in connection with his business which was established on an adjoining site. In September, 1967, Mr. Kershaw sold his business and the land that he had bought six months previously. He bought the land for £6,000, and he sold it for £6,000. No one disputes that he made no profit on the sale of the land.
Due to the provisions of the Act, he has been served by the Land Commission with an assessment for levy of £1,400. How much further can injustice to the


individual go? My constituent feels aggrieved and bewildered, and he has every reason. If he had completed the purchase one week later and had then resold at the price at which he had purchased, he would not have been subject to levy. If he had purchased the land, say, about six months sooner, had obtained planning permission for development and had begun work on the site before 5th April, 1967, again no levy would have been payable.
Of course, the provisions of the Land Commission Act were known. They were known, that is, to those whose business it is to conduct transactions in land. People such as my constituent relied on the natural justice of this country.
We understand that these provisions were framed by the Government for a purpose. The purpose was to prevent the establishment of artificial base values, before the Act came into force, by means of spurious sales.
The provisions by which Mr. Kershaw was caught relate only to a specific period which commenced on 22nd September, 1965, and ended on 6th April, 1967. I will return to that point in a few moments, when I will endeavour to suggest some remedy to meet the position of those who find themselves in like circumstances.
First, I want to say with all the emphasis that I can command that it should be totally unacceptable to this House and the Government that steps to stop some people escaping taxation should result in other people paying taxation in cases where it can be established that there had been no gain or profit to tax. Secondly, I deplore the lack of concern shown by the Minister for people who find themselves faced with this terrifying development in our taxation administration.
For centuries, people have come 10 the Palace of Westminster to seek the redress of their grievances. Hon. Members have been diligent in their championing of the rights of individuals. Almost without exception, Ministers have listened and acted sympathetically when oppression to an individual has been revealed. I would have expected the Minister to realise that taxation without gain is a direct infringement of personal liberty. Certainly, I consider it to be. No talk about the technicalities of a complex Bill

can detract from the fact that to tax a man when he has made no gain or profit must be an infringement of his liberty.
Apparently, the Minister does not take that view. On 24th January, I addressed a Question to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, asking
… how many assessments for levy have been served by the Land Commission in respect of sales of land purchased between 22nd September, 1965 and 6th April, 1967 and sold subsequent to 6th April, 1967 at a price not exceeding the purchase price?
I am surprised that the Minister did not recognise the importance of the issue involved, because his reply was:
This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate expense."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1969; Vol. 776, c. 189.]
I realise that that is a traditional phrase, but I suggest that "disproportionate expense" was an unhappy expression to use in this context. What about the disproportionate expense of Mr. Kershaw's £1,400 levy on a nil profit? My Question was not intended to be anything other than a straightforward attempt to discover how many people have found themselves in circumstances similar to those of my constituent.
We have heard today that the Land Commission has a staff of 1,200 and costs £2 million a year in administrative expenses. I do not think that it is unreasonable for that staff to be asked to search the Commission's files and discover how many people are being taxed on a non-existent profit. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will decide on reflection that his Answer was a mistake and that the information which I sought should be provided.
We are touching here on matters about which this House has always been particularly sensitive: the granting of supply and the rights of the individual to be protected from oppression.
What should the Government do to right this particular injustice created by the Land Commission Act? The Government are responsible for the complexities and drafting of the Act. As a layman, I can only suggest guidelines for action. The provisions which have caught my constituent—and I should be surprised if he were alone—were intended to prevent action to evade the Act during a specific period.
I have no doubt that in this respect they largely achieved their purpose. But retrospective legislation would not open the door to new fictitious transactions. Surely it should be possible now to amend the Act so as to provide grounds of appeal against the disallowance of the purchase price for base value in cases where it can be shown that the purchase was at a genuine price reflecting genuine market conditions.
No one can suggest that my constituent purchased at a fictitious price. The land in respect of which levy has been assessed upon him formed part of the site of an extensive pre-First World War munitions filling factory. The factory was, in fact, destroyed in a disastrous explosion which many people in my constituency still remember. What is more significant is that it has for many years been regarded as part of an industrial estate.
The area has been zoned in the town map as appropriate for industrial use. It was well known to anybody in the district that anyone purchasing land on this industrial estate would be granted all the necessary permissions for industrial development. Because of this confidence in the granting of permissions amounting almost to certainty, the land has changed hands for many years at a price reflecting these circumstances.
If it is felt that to give the Land Commission administrative discretion to allow the price at which land passed in the interim period to be used for base value would be too great an administrative discretion, let the aggrieved party have a right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal to establish that the transaction was a bona fide arm's length sale between buyer and seller.
Alternatively—and I think that there would be more justice in this—let the price be accepted as base value subject to appeal by the Land Commission that the price represented a fictitious transaction.
As I have said, it is clear why the Minister had to introduce the interim provisions, given the fact that he was introducing this cumbersome Act at all. I am sure that the provisions were successful in blocking a tax escape hole. But what is clear is that, in doing so, a number of innocent parties have been trapped and are being unfairly penalised.
In the summer of 1967 the Land Commission made representations to the Minister regarding those who had bought during the interim period plots for the erection of a single house, and the Minister made a concession. In February, 1968, the Commission made further representations and a further concession was made regarding those who had bought and sold plots for a single house. In July of last year the Minister made a further concession in respect of the interim period allowing the first £2,500 of the consideration in any conveyance to rank as base value.
This afternoon the Minister said that he would consider sympathetically individual cases. I should like to know whether he has received any further representations from the Land Commission regarding the interim period since July, 1968.
I have here a letter to my constituent from the Chairman of the Land Commission about this case. It is a courteous letter. This courtesy has been the experience of all who have referred to dealings with the Commission. In the penultimate paragraph Sir Henry Wells says:
I realise that this letter is not very help-helpful, but you will appreciate that I can only administer the law as it stands. I have no power to change it.
We are not asking the Minister to show sympathetic consideration and pass the buck back to the Land Commission. We are asking him to change the law so that the Commission can do what I believe it evidently wants to do, namely, what it recognises to be simple, logical justice.
On 28th January I asked the Minister whether he would increase the figure allowed for the base value for transactions in the interim period from £2,500 to £10,000. I should like to quote his answer because I think that the right hon. Gentleman has not been very happy about his choice of answers to me on this sensitive subject. He said:
No. I am satisfied that the concession announced on 22nd July, 1968, is adequate to deal with cases where the owner of the land could not have been expected to know about the White Paper on the Land Commission and to provide a measure of relief in other cases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1969; Vol. 776, c. 289.]
An extraordinary kind of relief, I must say. My constituent, Mr. Kershaw, is apparently to regard it as a measure of


relief that, instead of being taxed, say, £2,000, he is to be taxed £1,400 on a nonexistent profit. What an extraordinary measure of relief.
In asking the Minister to introduce amending legislation on the lines that I have indicated, I do not regard myself as asking for a concession. Nor am I seeking a so-called measure of relief. I am asking the Minister to right a gross injustice which the Land Commission Act has created and which it is in no one's power but the Government's to put right. The Government should recognise and act upon it and not make expressions of sypmpathy which take people nowhere in the extraordinary circumstances in which they find themselves as a result of this legislation.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I rise to make only a brief intervention in the debate. I offer my apologies to the House for having had to slip out during the debate, but I heard the opening speeches. I also offer apologies in advance as I have to attend another meeting at 8 o'clock. Therefore, I shall have to be away for half an hour, but I shall come straight back.
The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), opening the debate, spent a considerable part of his time talking about the Government's mortgage option scheme. I understood him to say that if hon. Members of the party opposite were returned to power they would amend that scheme. He did not add any qualification to that statement. I can only hope that that threat does not mean that they are prepared to unilaterally amend the scheme without proper and due consultation with the building societies and insurance offices conducting house purchase mortgages. If I remember correctly, there were very detailed negotiations between my right hon. Friends and the building societies before the introduction of the mortgage option scheme.
To meet some of the points made by the building societies the stipulation that the option by the house owner could only be exercised once was inserted. It will cause considerable fear and apprehension in the insurance and building society world if, when the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) winds up for the Opposition, he does not make it

clear that it is the Opposition's intention, if returned to power, to amend the scheme, if they so wish, only after proper consultation and not any of the wild and woolly promises to abolish all this or amend all that that flow almost daily from the Opposition in their desperate struggle to regain—I nearly said "popularity", but in view of the recent opinion poll I had better qualify that—in their attempt to regain power. Popularity is a transitional thing and we should be on the rebound.
On the mortgage option scheme, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to say a word or two about the small percentage of people who have exercised the option, but who have found, due to increases in salary, that they are suffering a disadvantage. A few people in my constituency have written to me about this, and I have had to tell them that under the terms negotiated with the the building societies it is not possible to make a change. I hope that the Government will be able to start talks in the near future with the building societies to see whether arrangements can be made to help people who now find themselves worse off under the scheme.
When my right hon. Friend opened the debate for this side of the House, hon. Gentlemen opposite sniggered when he talked about the number of starts and completions. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) intervened to draw attention to the fact that in 1964 there were a large number of starts, and these were handed over by the outgoing Administration to the incoming one. The thought that struck me then was that people live not in starts, but in completed houses. The fact that there were a reasonable number of starts at that time should not in any way detract from the magnificent job done by the building industry because of the enthusiasm which has been inspired by my right hon. Friends. A record number of houses have been completed in every one of the years since this Government took office.
I intervened in my right hon. Friend's speech to ask him whether he wished to qualify his optimism about the future in view of the fact that all over the country councils which have fallen to the Conservatives are attempting to slow down the housing programme. My constituency


falls in the same London borough as that of the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath). The council there is considering reducing its house-building programme. If this sort of thing were to happen all over the country, it could have a significant impact on the housing output. We ought to make it clear to the country that if there is a fall in the number of houses built it: will be due to politically-motivated councils trying to assist their friends at Westminster by slowing down the progress of council house building and house building generally.
The other undesirable practice which is developing in respect of house building and land development is that of selling off land which the previous council has carefully collected for its purposes. There is a clear example of this at Bexley. The local authority there is taking advantage of its temporary period of power to sell to its political friends land which was carefully and painfully assembled by the previous council for building council houses.
The council of which I had the honour to be the leader secured from a nurseryman and from other individual owners a plot of land at Crook Log. It is a reasonably-sized plot, upon which 92 homes could be built for people on the housing list who are in desperate need, but the new council has decided to sell that land for private development. This is most unfortunate, and the decision ought to be reversed.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: The hon. Gentleman said that a local council was selling land in public ownership to its political friends. He has now identified a plot of land which is up for sale. Is he using the privilege given to him in the House to make a statement which, if made outside the House, would be highly defamatory? Unless he has evidence that the purchasers of the land are the political friends of the people controlling that council, he should have the decency to withdraw his statement.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Speculative builders are not the friends of my party. The land is being sold to speculative builders, and. therefore, is being sold to friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I have no intention of withdrawing. Hon. Gentlemen opposite

can growl as much as they like. That is a clear and straightforward statement.
The trouble with selling land which has been acquired for public development is that it affects the number of starts and completions in the whole of the housebuilding sector. Reverting to the site at Crook Log, I can tell the House that the plans had been approved, the project was out to tender, and starts would have been made in the near future. Now, because of a change of policy which is based on doctrinaire ideas, this land will lie dormant while the new owner decides what he wants to build there and there will be a considerable decline in our endeavours to maintain the output of houses.
The Motion refers to the measures being taken by the Government as
deterring the spread of home ownership".
From speeches which I have heard in the House, and outside, I know how keen the party opposite is to spread home ownership throughout the country. Hon Gentlemen opposite believe, as I do, and as the vast majority of my hon. Friends do, that it is better to own one's home than to be the tenant of a private landlord. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or of the council."] Indeed. I have no objection to the sale of council houses in those areas where there is not a desperate shortage of houses, and where there are not thousands of people desperately anxious to get into a decent home.
I hope, when the opportunity presents itself, to present to the House a Bill which will confer on the tenants of private landlords the option to buy their homes. Knowing the interest of hon. Gentlemen opposite in home ownership, I look forward with relish to their jumping to my aid in an endeavour to increase home ownership, and to give all those small landlords who, for so long, have had to carry the terrible burden of keeping their houses in good repair, the opportunity to relinquish that burden and pass it on to their tenants.
I am sure that these tenants will be only too pleased to take advantage of the proposals in the Housing Bill to be debated next week. They will be able quickly to put these houses into a good state of repair, and to do all those things which private landlords have neglected to do for so many years. I hope that the hon. Member for Crosby will say


whether his party's enthusiasm for the spread of home ownership will extend to supporting me when I put my proposals before the House to bring about that desirable end.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) in commending my colleagues on this side of the House to take the view that the Motion is no more than party political humbug, and that we should reject it, and reject it with a resounding majority.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: I have had the pleasure and privilege of sitting with the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) on a town and country planning committee. His contribution today does not, therefore, surprise me, but I think that he is missing one point, and it is one which seems to have been missed by all hon. Gentlemen on the back benches opposite, namely, that the party opposite will not fulfil its promises. They will not achieve the targets which they forecast—

Mr. Wellbeloved: Only if your lot stay on the councils.

Mr. Clegg: This cannot be true, as the hon. Member knows.
The Minister was very cautious about giving figures for this year or 1970 but was quite certain about 1973. When a Minister who does not even know what will happen in 1969 claims to be able to forecast for 1973, this is typical of what the party opposite has done with its pledges, not only over housing but in many other matters.
One of the most interesting parts of the debate was the contribution of the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). It was rather like Frankenstein coming back to have a look at his monster. He wanted to pat the monster on the back and kiss it better, whereas we want to cut its throat, for excellent reasons. Nothing has been said by hon. Members opposite to convince me that it should be retained. Some of the arguments reflect those in Standing Committee on the Land Commission Bill, of which I had the somewhat dubious privilege of being a member.
Today, I feel that rather nasty "I told you so" emotion which no one likes,

but which cannot be avoided. We said that the Betterment Levy would raise the price of land, and it has. Today the Minister told us that this was not so and quoted figures, but they were only specific figures about price rises in the last two or three years which was for public purchases. He did not quote any figures for private purchases, which, so far as I know from asking the statistical service here, are almost impossible to get.
But I have some comfort for the Minister, because I found one indication of how much private house prices had risen during the first few years. Talking about housing associations, this quotation says:
Unfortunately there are formidable difficulties in the way. Despite the option mortgage, interest rates are too high, land is difficult to find and almost prohibitively expensive in many areas. Since January. 1965, the price of land has risen by about 38 per cent.
This is a very respectable source, because the quotation is from the Socialist Commentary of January, 1969. That shows what the party opposite's policies have led to.
We have been repeatedly told that there is no evidence that the Betterment Levy is raising prices, but, having practised as a solicitor, I have seen the levy added to prices, and builders and developers still buying. One example was reported to me by a colleague in the profession. He was rung up by a woman who said that she had a plot of land to sell with planning permission for houses and wanted £8,000 for it. He said, "What about the levy?" She said, "What levy?" He told her about the levy and she said, "Then I had better ask £16,000 for it." She did, and she got it. That is the way that the levy is raising prices. The builder and developer do not mind paying more for the land because they are not the ones who pay the levy. That is left to the man who buys the house. It is the home buyer who pays it. When we see all these millions going into the Treasury, we should remember that it is the small man, effectively, who is paying the money—

Mr. Niall MacDermot: Is it not surprising that, in the hon. Member's example, the price was doubled, although the Betterment Levy is only 40 per cent.?

Mr. Clegg: I thought that that made the example even worse, because had


the woman not been told of the Betterment Levy she would have charged £8,000.
But I have further evidence from the Financial Times of 27th May this year, under the heading "Land Commission—Little achieved so far." Under a subheading, "Much dearer", it says:
Developers maintain, however, that because of the Betterment Levy the land which is now coming on to the market is that much dearer. In the first auctions after the passing of the Act, land was being quoted at 40 per cent. higher, the full cost of the levy, and in certain land-hungry parts of the country, such as the area around Nottingham, prices are still about 25 per cent. above the levels ruling before April, 1967.
If the Minister wanted practical experience, he could ask my profession and the estate agents and valuers, who will tell him that people are adding on the price of the levy.
The serious difficulty is that, when we consider the price of land, we are given by hon. Members opposite the old justification for the Land Commission—profiteering. This is a dangerous red herring, because the Commission's greatest achievement is to justify the argument which we used in Committee—that it was not profiteering which was driving up the price of land but the shortage of land brought about by planning. This was, to a certain extent, recognised by the Government in the Town and Country Planning Bill, for which the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) had some responsibility.
Unless the House realises that it is land shortage, initiated by planning, which causes house prices to rise, we shall never solve the problem. Talk of profiteering clouds the issue. Planners know it, the Land Commission knows it and it is time that the House accepted that much bigger allocations of land for house building had to be liberated by the planners before the Land Commission could be even as effective as the party opposite regard it.
Examples have been given of hardship. The most disappointing feature of the Minister's speech was that he said nothing about helping the owner-occupier with a little bit of land attached to his house. This will disappoint many people not only because of the hardship but because it is the Commission's duty

to examine every conveyance. It is the fact that all conveyances must be examined to see whether levy is payable, which clogs up the machine. I hate to suggest anything which would make this wretched thing more effective, but, administratively, this one improvement would. It happens with Capital Gains Tax; why not in this case?
One example from my constituency will show what is happening. A constituent bought a house in about 1936 with quite a bit of garden. Eventually, a road was driven through and he sold it. By then he was an old-age pensioner. He received £800 and had eventually to pay about £250 in levy. We have heard great things about how the community has a right to collect betterment. In this case the extra £240 would have made a significant difference to this old-age pensioner's life, rather than the money going to the Treasury. The Minister should introduce an exemption for people who suffer in this way.
In considering the prospects for home ownership in 1969, it is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) has shown in recent statements that he is worried. He has been asking the Government to make reductions in interest rates. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen. Indeed, it is becoming clear that interest rates will be high in 1969. The December edition of The Building Societies Gazette contains an article by the economist Graham Hutton, who asks:
Will 1969 prove the 10 per cent. year?
That is a sickening thought. He advances valid arguments to show why interest rates might rise to that level.
Two facts must be borne in mind; first, that some local authorities are already lending at more than 8£ per cent. and, secondly, that on the market Associated Portland, a reputable company, is borrowing from the public at 9 per cent. There is also a big return on the gilt-edged market. There are constant rumours about Bank Rate going up and there is a rumour that the Government will find a means to encourage saving, perhaps by a contractual scheme.
All these factors may make mortgages more difficult to get, because the building societies are in competition with all other kinds of borrowing in an effort to secure


more funds so that they may lend more out. The difficulties caused by the mortgage famine are grim. I can appreciate this only too well as a solicitor. Much hardship is caused when a whole range of transactions is held up because people find it impossible to obtain mortgages. This is particularly hard on those who are going in for home ownership for the first time.
Bearing these facts in mind, I cannot, from the home ownership point of view, see much daylight ahead in the coming year, particularly since everything will depend on the general economic situation. We cannot insulate building societies from the fact that local authorities are having to pay high rates of interest for the money that they are able to borrow from the Government. I have come to the conclusion that the only salvation for home owners, as for the nation as a whole, is for us to get rid of the present Government, who mismanage the economy, and elect a Government who know how to manage it.

7.43 p.m.

Dr. David Kerr: The last words of the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) represented about the most facile solution to a difficult problem that one could imagine. One might have the impression that throughout our history of dealing with housing problems there has been a ready-made solution, no matter the complexion of the Government, waiting to be plucked off the trees.
The Labour Government do not have anything of which to be particularly ashamed in their handling of this problem, and the whole essence of the arguments being adduced by hon. Gentlemen opposite is stupid. Apart from prisons, Governments build little else. One does not see even a Labour Prime Minister with a wheelbarrow between his arms or the Minister of Housing with a hod of bricks over his shoulder. Governments merely create the circumstances in which agencies—land developers, regional hospital boards and others—do the building for them.
It is fundamentally stupid to suggest that it is the Government's responsibility if the number of houses built is not sufficient. The Government can only

create the circumstances in which others can build. We must, therefore, consider whether the efforts of the Labour Party have been directed towards building more houses or towards obstructing this course.
The gravamen of the charge levelled by hon. Gentlemen opposite is not that the nation is building too few houses but that it is providing them in the wrong sector. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that we are building too many local authority houses?

Mr. Clegg: Mr. Clegg indicated dissent.

Dr. Kerr: The hon. Gentleman is correct. We are not building enough. We must take that into account in considering the charges which hon. Gentlemen opposite are making against the Land Commission and the Government for failing to deliver the goods. I put it timidly—because there are not many hon. Members in their places to listen to me—that we do not have much opportunity to defeat the housing problem while we live in a capitalist society, since the whole essence of the housing situation in such a society is that it thrives on shortage.

Mr. Clegg: Mr. Clegg rose—

Dr. Kerr: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument.
I am saying, in other words, that by maintaining a scarcity of houses one maintains house values. It is not an accident but an unhappy fact—perhaps this is where the Government have failed—that property share values on the market today are higher than they have ever been. I cannot see what hon. Gentlemen opposite are grumbling about. I intend to grumble, but not about that. The property companies are doing very well, thank you, and if the Land Commission is having such a slight effect on matters, then there are other means of dealing with them; but perhaps I had better not be too rash.
The charge being levelled by hon. Gentlemen opposite is that a combination of the Land Commission and some sort of incompetence on the part of the Government has somehow deprived the nation of housing. I do not know what sort of incompetence it was which deprived us of housing in years gone by.


We have been under-housed for much longer than I have been alive; and to a certain extent, therefore, we have a share of the responsibility.
What have the Government attempted to do to ameliorate the position? Perhaps it is not appropriate for me to speak about the building of houses, not because there is anything about which we need hide our heads, but because it is not a subject about which I can profess to speak with direct authority or information. However, I have had a marginal interest in the Land Commission throughout its history.
It was not without a degree of disappointment that I heard my right hon. Friend record the achievements of the Commission. I understand that, so far, it has collected about £8 million in betterment levy. This sounds a lot, but it is a silly little amount which, in any event, goes to the Treasury and saves me perhaps ·001 of a penny in Income Tax.
This should not be the fate of the levy. If the Land Commission is to function, I urge that we look at the possibility of amending its functions so that the levy is devoted properly to urban renewal and betterment and is not immediately handed over to the Treasury. Indeed, the levy is at present such a trivial sum that I cannot understand how on earth hon. Gentlemen opposite can suggest that the Commission's activities are having any real significance in the shortfall of the supply of houses. The efforts of hon. Gentlemen opposite represent the most monstrous piece of silly conjuring with statistics we have seen for a long time, and demonstrates much more the failure of the Conservatives to understand what is involved in housing and land costs than it does the failure of the Land Commission.
I believe that the Commission is a useful instrument and that it is capable of far more than it has yet achieved. I look forward to seeing it exercising such activity and doing such prodding of land owners that we will hear some real squeals from hon Gentlemen opposite. At present the amount of land which the Commission has managed to take into its ownership is pathetically trivial. More important, however, is the fact that after two years of existence there is now in the pipeline the growing possibility of greater land ownership; and the more that this

is accelerated and the greater the control the Commission is able to exercise on the disposal and use of land, the more effective it will become in the terms in which it was originally established.
It is no use hon. Gentlemen opposite creating about the Land Commission and its failure. Any failure lies not in it having done too much on behalf of the nation to help cure its housing ills, but in it not having done enough. I plead with the Minister, as I have done before, to put a little steam under the Land Commission. He should allow it to retain the levy and to apply it to proper schemes of betterment and acquisition. Above all, he should ensure that the Commission accelerates its programme of acquisition.
It is quite clear that, apart from the betterment, apart from the levy and the programme of acquisition, the fact that the Land Commission exists has an effect on the programme of land acquisition by other people which is something we cannot measure in mathematical terms. If a landowner is disposing of land he does so in a different way when he knows that the Land Commission may be interested from when he disposes of it on the open market. He knows that the Land Commission may be round the corner, but he suspects that it is drowsily asleep. I ask my right hon. Friend to think of ways and means of stimulating the Land Commission to do much more.
We are living in one of the most densely populated countries in the world—not the most densely populated, but very nearly. Because of this it is inevitable that the cost of land per acre will go up and that it will go up fastest in areas where the population is rising most quickly either through population movement or increased birthrate. This is unfortunately true in areas of the great conurbations. If we are to make any success of the housing programme in terms of numbers of houses, the need for more new towns becomes apparent. Only by applying ourselves much more assiduously to an ambitious programme of new town development can we go ahead to rectify the growing pressure for land in urban areas.
Reference has been made to the activities of the building societies. I read with great interest the statistics they send to


us. It is a little disappointing on this occasion to find that there has been a fall in their assets. Nevertheless, last year the societies recorded an increase in the number of loans they made and the number of houses bought. That is a very praiseworthy record. [Interruption.] I am quoting from the most recent news sheet.

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Member is incorrect. More money was loaned, but there were 100,000 fewer loans made. In other words, more money was lent to a smaller number of people.

Dr. Kerr: I do not hold the document in my hand and I bow to the hon. Member's knowledge. My reading, and I looked at it carefully, but perhaps I made a mistake, was that the number of loans had increased over the previous year. Even if the hon. Member is right, the record of the Labour Government in relation to the building societies has been a remarkable one. It has made a great contribution to the growth of home ownership, which is something we all welcome very much.
I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) spoke. I understand that he referred to the mortgage option scheme, the once-only option at the request of a building society. I wish to reinforce what he said. It is no use right hon. Gentleman opposite suggesting schemes which would throw the mortgage scheme into chaos. A change of option would not only be highly mischievous for the administration of the scheme, but from the building society point of view it would subject the whole scheme almost to dissolution.
When we look at the total number of houses built we find there is still the large sector built for private ownership. As a house owner myself this seems the only sensible way of going ahead, but there are still many people who cannot deal with the problem of acquiring a house. They cannot do so for a number of factors. As a doctor I know that there are many people who cannot conceive that they are able to buy a house. They cannot deal with the problem for temperamental reasons. They cannot face what it means in payment of mortgage and upkeep of the fabric, for they cannot

accustom themselves to something so alien to the climate in which they have grown up.
This is particularly true of those in lower income groups. They cannot surmount the first vital hurdle of the deposit. Although the idea of house ownership looks attractive, it becomes a will-o'-the-wisp. A 100 per cent. mortgage is based on valuation, and often in areas of high housing density where low income groups tend to assemble the valuation does not come up to the price demanded and agreed. It is housing shortage, rising land costs due to rising pressure for land and, above all, the rising cost of money that is the trouble. I do not want to make a speech which would be more appropriate to a debate on the Finance Bill, but we are living through a period not only of rising cost of land but a continued rise in the cost of money, for while land is scarce so is money.
All over the world there is an insatiable demand for capital for investment in a variety of things. The fact that we generate a lot of capital ourselves gives us some help, but that does not solve the problem. The rising cost of money faces any Government with a terrible dilemma. They can either force people to pay the market price for money which is an argument much canvassed by hon. Members opposite or they can subsidise the cost of money by lower interest rates—in effect by paying from the Exchequer the cost of interest to those fortunate enough to own money and land. It is the cost of acquiring money which is causing this situation.
There are a number of ways of dealing with this. My right hon. Friend might think about nationalisation of large banking and insurance institutions. It might be better if as Socialists we had a tighter rein on our interest rates. My right hon. Friend may be sure of my support when he produces a Bill in this context, but there are other things which we might look at even now, such as the acquisition of rented property. We have heard an anguished cry from property owners in a bright little pamphlet referring to the contribution which property owners might make towards solving the housing shortage. The Milner Holland Report seems to have been quickly forgotten. This showed clearly that those with property for rent are absolutely incapable of solving anything.
I am not totally without a good word for land lords, because I have had to learn to swallow some of the harsh things I have said about them in favour of some of the good landlords. In a harsh market they are often generous and helpful, but usually we cannot expect the landlord to do otherwise than maximise his profits. To do that today is to ensure that he cannot provide houses at a reasonable rent for people to occupy in ways socially acceptable in a world which has advanced very considerably from the conditions of the 1930s.
These are all relevant facts. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us, first, the way in which he will persuade the Land Commission to get up steam; secondly, that he will see that it retains the levy and uses it appropriately, and, thirdly, that he will be able to help us solve the problem of the acquisition of privately-rented property, so that we shall have a much larger housing pool.
I want to interpose a word about our housing problem, much of which is dependent upon the immobility of home occupiers. There are several things that my right hon. Friend might think about. One of the most important is a national housing list, with national standards instead of the widely varying local authority standards, a different points system from that which prevails and which is responsible for the difficulties of moving from one town to another, especially in respect 3f municipal housing.
The solving of all these problems would considerably ameliorate our difficult housing position, since much of our existing housing is left empty. We have more dwellings than we have families, yet we are experiencing a nerve-wracking housing shortage in many areas. The immobility of home occupiers is one of the most important factors in our housing shortage, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us what he is doing to improve the situation.
There remains the awful problem of housing replacement and renewal. I am well aware that the difficulties to which I have already referred—the scarcity of land and the cost of money—are of cardinal importance in this respect. Nonetheless, they can be tackled. But they cannot be tackled effectively and permanently in a capitalist system of

housing. That is why I hope that my right hon. Friend is applying all his best Socialist thoughts—which he used to promulgate with such vigour and effectiveness—to finding a Socialist solution of our housing problem rather than a patched-up capitalist one.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: It is, perhaps, one of the occupational hazards of the House that when one is called to speak at dinner time one has not the advantage of addressing Ministers. I am especially aware of that hazard since most of my remarks are in answer to comments that he made.
Nevertheless, I shall continue with what I had it in mind to say. The Minister has earned for himself the much-envied accolade of the building industry—that of a master maker of bricks out of straw. What a monstrous edifice of a speech he made out of one little straw—a straw which he clutched to himself and then raised and brandished round the House.
So fascinated was the right hon. Gentleman that he put it down and circled round it in his speech, returning to it time and time again. This solitary straw, around which he constructed his whole speech, was the figure of 413,715 houses completed during 1968. He chided us with our timing of the debate, but I am sure that he had a sense of relief that we timed it after he was able to announce this figure.
We must give honour where honour is due. Anyone who is interested in the housing problem would welcome a record in house building because it means that more people are housed. But this welcome must be qualified, because it has been attained four years too late. It should have been attained in 1965, and would have been attained in that year were it not for the economic crisis in the winter of 1964 into which the new Administration plunged this country, causing such chaos and confusion in the building industry.
It is said that the Government have built more houses than ever before for private ownership, but I want the House to examine the figures of houses built in the private sector. In 1964, the number of houses completed was 218,094. In 1965, the number fell by 4,295, despite the starts left, of more than 400,000. In 1966, the number was 12,722 fewer than


in 1964, and in 1967 it was 17,656 fewer than in 1964.
We had a progressive decline during the first three years of this Administration. The Minister did not tell the House about that. The tendency has been reversed in 1968 so that instead of a minus quantity 2,899 more houses were built in the private sector than in 1964 Even so, taking the four years overall there is still a minus figure of 21,777 houses which we say could and should have been built—and would have been built if the impetus that this Government took over in 1964 had been maintained.
The figure which we are given for 1968, which I welcome, is nevertheless a freakish figure. Historically, it will be shown to be a freakish figure, because we know already that the number of starts for 1968 were 33,500 fewer than in 1967, and it is the starts in 1967 which are completed in 1968 and the starts in 1968 which will be completed in 1969. Those starts were 33,500 fewer than in the preceding year.
Therefore, it does not require much to see that our housing completions in 1969 are bound to be much below the number of completions in 1968, and could well fall below the 400,000 target that this Administration have set themselves for so long. The 1968 figure is in itself a distortion. To see what has been achieved we must examine the graph for the whole period and not put out one straw—the straw that the Minister clutched so gratefully.
In developing his speech, the right hon. Gentleman compared the achievements of the two parties. He did so by lumping together the four years before 1964 and comparing them with the four subsequent years. What he did not tell the House was that the first four years included the winter of 1963, which was the bitterest in recorded memory—when the whole country was gripped in an icy grasp for between six and eight weeks and virtually every activity came to a complete standstill. The housing figures were down in that year as a consequence.
But just as that figure was freakish, inasmuch as it fell below the Conservative programme, its equivalent is now to be found in the freak figure of 1968, which boosts artificially the record of this Government. It is not right to take just

an isolated year here or there to justify a particular assertion. One must take the whole range of years to see how progress has gone. I take the 13 years of Conservative rule, going back to 1951, when they inherited a building programme of about 190,000 houses a year. Progressively, that 190,000 was built up to beyond the 400,000 figure by 1964, the number of starts which we left in the hands of the party opposite. The graph of those years shows that progress was constant save for the one year 1963 when there were physical hazards which could not be overcome by the building industry.
That is the way to draw a true comparison between the achievements of one party and the other. We had a progression from 1951, the break-through past the 200,000 target which the late Earl Attlee said was the best this country could do, the break-through past the 300,000 target, and then the breakthrough beyond 400,000. That was the achievement of those so-called wasted years. The figures I have given for the private sector in the subsequent four years 1964–67 show that there was a consistent slipping back from the earlier progression under our Government.
However, having said that in answer to what the Minister for Planning and Land told us, I say at once that I am not a believer in these targets. I do not believe that the Government should set themselves a target of 200,000, 300,000, 400,000, or even 500,000. Like the Minister of Housing and Local Government, I am not a "targeteer". There is nothing particularly edifying in the two parties joining in a sort of double-act to the refrain, "Anything you can do I can do better". It does not impress the public, or make them feel that we shall build more houses, if we spend our time comparing figures and bandying them about the Chamber.
I believe that housing targets are dangerous. We know from authoritative and official statements that, by the mid-1970s, provided that we maintain roughly the programme of 400,000 a year—a few more or less does not matter much—we shall have achieved a favourable balance in the overall housing provision. Therefore, we need not set ourselves bigger and better targets, singing round them, "Ring-a-ring o' roses. What you can do we can do better".
The danger is that, although by the mid-1970s the overall housing problem of this country will have been solved in the sense that there will, by a certain percentage, be more houses than households requiring them, there will still exist centres of dire pressure where bad housing circumstances remain. I refer to the big cities, London, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow. That is where our housing problem is and where it will persist for many years.
The danger of a national housing target is that we, or whatever Administration it may be, will tend to achieve that target just to show that we have kept our word, wherever the houses are built, whereas the true concentration and emphasis should be on the big cities. In my view, national housing targets will tend to distract attention from where the problem really lies. For my part, I would have them thrown overboard immediately. Let us not waste any more time on them.
The other disadvantage of the housing target is this. New construction is not necessarily the answer in the cities where the real housing problem persists. We still have vast stocks of sound houses in those centres which, after renovation and modernisation, can make a significant contribution to meeting housing needs. Spending money on that work will not take one past one's housing target, but that is where the money must be spent. This is another reason why I feel that both sides of the House ought to give up the double-act on housing targets which we have witnessed in the post-war years. The people would benefit. They would appreciate it even in their vote when they realised that we were tackling the problem seriously in their interests and not merely trying to score party political points.
I commend those thoughts to the Minister. They are my thoughts. They are the thoughts which I shall try to impress upon my colleagues when we come to power. I hope that they will be heeded and, perhaps, find their way into legislation. Meanwhile, because I feel strongly the need to solve our housing problem as soon as possible, I offer them to the present Minister free, gratis and for nothing. I hope that he will

implement them, because I believe that that is where the solution lies.
I am glad that the Minister for Planning and Land has returned so that I may now deal with one or two other matters in his speech, becoming party political now, whereas for a moment or two I tried to be non-party political. The right hon. Gentleman told us that his Government have done everything they can to encourage home owners, and he gave us as an example the mortgage option scheme. In fact, that scheme has been a catastrophic flop. Nine per cent. is nothing. Can he say how many of the 9 per cent. are people who wish that they had never gone into the scheme and would now like to pull out, particularly if the allowances for children which they were given in the last Budget have just taken them over the top from a tax point of view? Some of these people have made a poor deal. The Minister ought to help them out of it, amending the scheme so that they can pull out.
I do not for a moment accept that the mortgage option scheme has contributed anything significant to home ownership. Still less has the mortgage guarantee scheme of 100 per cent. contributed anything. Four per cent. is nothing there, either. It is very little use and does not really help. Something far more imaginative must come from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government if real help is to be given to that group of the population so that they may acquire houses of their own.
As the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) did, the right hon. Gentleman made great play of the additional money lent by the building societies last year, although they had to run down their liquidity ratio. The implication was that we should applaud the Government's encouragement of the building societies to do so, which meant that £100,000 more was lent in 1968 over and above the loans in 1967, showing how keen the Government are on home ownership.
What we were not told, as I pointed out in my intervention to the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central, was that that money represents a less amount of loans. What has happened is that more money has been loaned to fewer people.


I must inform the House that during my intervention I quoted the wrong figure. I said that there were 100,000 fewer loans. I meant to say that £100,000 more was loaned but that 6,000 fewer people received the money. It was the figure of 100,000 that caught my eye and I apologise to the House if I quoted a wrong figure.
The argument remains, however, that the fact that £100,000 more was loaned and 6,000 fewer people received mortgages means that the cost of housing is escalating, because much more is being loaned per capita on mortgage loans to acquire fewer houses. This is an indirect proof that the cost of housing is going up fairly rapidly. The figures certainly show that.
Interest charges are, of course, the big problem in home ownership. This is where the present Administration have grievously misled the country. They may well say that they have an alibi and that interest rates tie their hands. We see the little gnomes of Zurich lurking among the benches, and they are pushed forward to show why the Government cannot reduce interest rates.
When the Labour Government made their promise to reduce mortgage interest rates after sitting for 13 years in the wilderness, having nothing else to do but to study these problems, did they not know what the financial problems were? Either they were completely incompetent and did not know, and, therefore, have no business to be running the country, or they knew and grossly deceived the people by promising to do things that they could not possibly do. On either count, they stand absolutely condemned.

Mr. W. S. Hilton: I was interested in the hon. Member's progression argument about housing. There is something in that. If we were to apply that argument to the case that the hon. Member is making, would he not agree that when the Conservatives came to power housing interest rates were 7 per cent. but went up to 7 per cent. during their term of office and that the acceleration in interest rates during their time was far worse than under the present Administration?

Mr. Rossi: I agree that the mortgage interest rate went up to 7 per cent., but

for a short time only and never as long as it has been maintained at that level by the present Administration. There is no question of that.
A lot of conflicting evidence has been given to the House today about prices. There has been a denial that prices of houses have increased during the past four years, yet the Minister informed the House in his speech that house prices had gone up by about 30 per cent. during the last four years. Some of his hon. Friends behind him, apparently, have other information and they either disagree or try to improve the Minister's case.
Nevertheless, on the Minister's own admission, it is clear that the cost of housing has gone up by approximately 30 per cent. over the past four years under the present Administration. The explanation which we were given for this was improved standards of new houses. There was, however, what one might call some small print, because the Minister said that the improved standards contributed something towards the cost. Hon. Members should note and underline the small print, because if the implication is that this is responsible for the 30 per cent. increase, the Minister is kidding nobody.
People outside this House are not fools, whatever hon. Members opposite may think of other people within the House. They know that things like the increased tax on petrol, import duties on timber which comes into this country, Selective Employment Tax and things of that kind contribute significantly to the increased cost of housing. These items are the direct action of the Government, who pledged themselves, and came into power on the promise, to reduce the cost of housing and the cost of land.
That is where hon. Members opposite stand condemned. All the bravado that they may muster, all the waving of one magical figure of 413,000 houses for 1968, will never let them off that hook. And so they turn to the Land Commission and they clutch again at the Commission as a panacea and cure for all their woes and evils. But what a ghastly and dismal flop the Commission has been. Not one of its objectives has been obtained. It has not reduced the price of housing. It has not significantly taken the profit away from the speculators, because the hon. Member for Wandsworth,


Central spoke about a trivial £8 million. To him, £8 million seems significant, particulary when it costs us £2 million a year to collect. Is that what the Commission was set up to achieve?
I should like to give an example concerning the cost of housing. I have a letter from a firm of agents who recite the experience of some developers, who, two years ago, acquired a site for about 36 units. Having acquired the site, they experienced difficulty with the local authority in getting planning consent. There were problems about siting and materials to be used for filling in the land. That discussion, as these discussions often do with local authorities, took 18 months to conclude. They therefore had the land for 18 months after purchase awaiting planning permission.
They did not sit idle, however. They got on with their programme and worked out their costing. They organised their labour. Their costs were based on the cost of land, site works, building costs and estimated levy. They arrived at a figure for the price at which they would sell each of the 36 houses to be built. They started putting them on the market and four or five people agreed to pay the price which they were quoting.
Then, along came the district valuer. Basing his calculations on a recent auction of building land, he calculated a levy which would have increased the price of each of the houses by between £200 and £300. The developers are, therefore, placed in a dilemma. They can either take a loss on the buildings and keep their word, although those concerned have not signed contracts as yet, or they can add £200 or £300 to the price of each house. Neither way is satisfactory from the point of view of a Government seeking to encourage home ownership. Either the Government are going to discourage development going ahead with schemes when they are faced with such a situation, or they are going to make sure that the cost of the levy will be passed on to the consumer every time on the cost of the house, which is what we predicted when the Betterment Levy was brought in. This is inescapable.
Anyone practically concerned with development—whether lawyer, valuer, estate agent, or developer—without exception will tell the Minister that great confusion

and uncertainty has been caused by this Measure the only effect of which can be to delay and retard development and send up costs. The Land Commission has failed in its primary function—a function which we heard so much about during the General Election.
There is another function which it has failed abysmally to carry out, though again through no fault of its own but because of circumstances. One of the reasons for setting up the Commission was to make land available for development. There was talk of "hoarding" by speculators, building up private banks of land to release on the market when they could make a good killing. The Commission, we were told, would take it away from them and make it available for the poor people who wanted housing.
According to the Labour Party, sitting in the wilderness for 13 years studying these problems, land hoarding was the real basis of the housing problem. But let us turn to the Annual Report of the Land Commission. On page 6, it says:
In South East England … this survey revealed that in many areas available land was limited to only a few years' supply … most of this land cannot be made available for early development. Much of it consists of small parcels, such as back gardens of occupied houses, that are not likely to come on to the market in the near future without resort to compulsory purchase, which would generally be difficult to justify. Some is not suitable for development at all because of physical difficulties. Of the rest of the land shown as available, a high proportion is already in the hands of builders, so that there is very little that can be acquired and developed now by those other builders who need land urgently.
Why, therefore, do we need the Land Commission? As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) said, let us abolish it at the earliest possible moment.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: I say, with great respect to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), that I hardly feel that the length of his speech was justified by its constructive content. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), my successor at the Ministry, on his appointment, and also on his style and title as Minister for Planning and Land. I never quite understand why it is that more Ministers of State are not


given the title which explains to the public what their functions are. I wasted much time as Minister of State explaining to people that I did not deal with either housing or local government, but with planning and land. My right hon. Friend can save a lot of breath in comparison.
The hon. Member for Hornsey suggested that my right hon. Friend, in his devastating attack on the Motion, had clutched at a single straw—this being the simple fact that, under the present Government's administration, more houses were built last year than ever before. That is a fairly substantial straw, and it has sufficed as a sufficient battering ram to crush the Opposition Motion.
The subject I want to deal with in particular was also touched on by the hon. Member for Hornsey and by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg). This is the question of why there is a shortage of land in the pressure areas. They both stressed that it is not due to "hoarding" as the hon. Member for Hornsey put it, or to "profiteering", as the hon. Member for North Fylde called it. I agree with the general proposition that there is not hoarding on a large scale. But there are cases of it, and one of the useful functions of the Land Commission can be to help bring forward land which is being hoarded.
In a debate we had last summer I gave some instances and examples of how the Land Commission was doing that. This is not the major problem. If we are to be honest—and I will try to respond to the spirit of the brief interlude in the speech of the hon. Member for Hornsey when he tried to be non-partisan and look at the real problem—it is that land prices ever since the war have gone up pretty evenly by about 7 per cent. a year under all Administrations and under all twists and changes of circumstances.
It is the pressure of demand that is causing those prices to rise and the restriction of supply by planning. I entirely accept what the hon. Member for North Fylde said, that it is basically a shortage in planning terms of land which is available for development in the places where people want to develop which is causing the increase in land prices. What do the Opposition propose to do about it? This is what we never hear. They keep repeating that it is not

hoarding, it is a shortage in planning terms that does it. They never suggest any way in which we should get more land released in those areas of shortage, determine what those areas are, and persuade planning authorities to release more land.
The reason is very simple. It is that most hon. Members opposite sit for constituencies which are in those very areas where the demand exists, and where the planning authorities are not bringing forward the land. Therefore it never lies in the mouths of hon. Members opposite to suggest that it is ever right to bring any pressure to bear on these reluctant planning authorities to bring forward more land. This problem is concentrated round the great conurbations. This is where the pressure is and will continue to be. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr), who said that we should endeavour as far as we can to direct this pressure for housing towards new towns.
Let us face it, this is a long, slow and difficult process. Even with the new drive which we have given to new and expanded towns, there will be over the next decade a very great pressure for land round the big conurbations. What is the solution? We are all waiting for Maud. We will see what recommendations come out for the reform of the structure of local government. It may be that if following that, we find our local government system reorganised, as most people generally seem to accept it should be, on the basis of city regions, we shall get nearer to a solution of the problem, in that we shall then have planing authorities who will be responsible both for the areas from which the pressure comes and the areas into which it is being exerted.
It may be that we shall get less delay in the release of land in the areas where land is required. This can only apply in those city regions which are covered by a single authority. I do not know what other hon. Members think, but I find it very difficult—

Mr. Oscar Murton: Mr. Oscar Murton (Poole) rose—

Mr. MacDermot: I am sorry I cannot give way. I do not want to be long and I have something to say. I think it


extremely unlikely that out of any reorganisation of local government we will see resulting any kind of planning authority which at one sweep will cover all conurbations and all the surrounding countryside land related to and dependent on that conurbation.
This struggle, this conflict between the conurbations and the rural areas is, therefore, bound to continue. I thought that the most helpful, positive and most important statement in this debate was that made by my right hon. Friend when he was describing a meeting which he had in his Ministry this afternoon. He spoke of what I know to be a crucial meeting with the representatives of the Home County authorities round London in order to discuss the joint examinations and surveys which have been going on for over a year to assess the real demand and the immediate and urgent need for additional land to be released for planning purposes. I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will keep up the pressure on this subject and will set a definite target date by which agreement must be reached and proposals come forward for the release of further land.
If that is achieved, make no mistake, a great contribution will have been made by the Land Commission, because it is the Commission which has been conducting the sirveys and discussions and negotiations with the planning authorities and which, if the planning authorities wish to play it that way, can be a challenge to the planning authorities. It has the power, when it can establish the need, to apply for planning permission and compulsory purchase in a doublebarrelled application at the same time. The Commission has made it plain that it does not want to play it that way. It wants, not to blackmail and threaten the planning authorities, but to cooperate with them.
However, two way co-operation is required and the planning authorities must take a positive and constructive attitude to releasing land when the need and demand have been established. The authorities will find great advantage in co-operating with the Land Commission which, by acquiring the land in bulk, can release it in a phased programme which will fit in with the local authority's own ideas and plans for development. This is why, with great patience, the Commission

has been preaching the doctrine of co-operation. It genuinely means it. I hope that it will not be taken as a sign of weakness and that the planning authorities will co-operate with it. If they do not, it is inevitable that there will be a clash between the Commission and the planning authorities, with the Commission fighting them to release more land. This will not be the best solution for anyone, but it will result if there is not co-operation from the planning authorities. I am well aware of their difficulties, and so is the Commission.
For these reasons, I very much welcome what I regard as an extremely important statement by the Minister this afternoon.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: I was struck with the Minister's pride in the housing figures. He nearly convinced me that he had them just about right. He said that it was right to abandon the 500,000 target. The fact that the present housing figure was just over 400,000 was immensely satisfactory to him. I began to wonder why the Labour Party got lumbered with the figure of 500,000 houses when, according to what the Minister said, we did not need them.
I do not agree with the Minister one little bit. The figure of 500,000 houses a year is necessary for at any rate a certain time, until there is a housing surplus. Then will be the time to start reducing the housing target. We shall then go over to greater housing renewals. But for the Minister to pretend that he has the housing target right is making a virtue out of a necessity. I was sorry that he seemed to support what the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) said, that Tory councils were deliberately refusing to build houses and that this was the reason for the considerable shortfall last year in the private sector. If this is the case, I am very surprised. If it is not the case—

Mr. K. Robinson: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. What my hon. Friend said was not relative to the past, but to the future. He said, and I agreed with him, that what could put our predictions wrong would be if Conservative local authorities refused to go on building houses to rent.

Mr. Allason: That is a purely hypothetical question, to which one could perfectly easily give the answer, "Yes". The right hon. Gentleman is in a responsible position and has knowledge of what goes on in his Ministry, and should not hint that this sort of thing is happening or is likely to happen.
I would like to know how it is that the Conservative-controlled Urban District Council of Berkhamsted, which is seeking to build houses, is being refused permission to do so by the Ministry. The council sought to bring a deputation to see the Minister, who refused to see the deputation. This does not sound like Tory councils refusing to build houses. The fact is that Tory councils are being refused permission to build council houses, which is a very different state of affairs.
The Minister said that the Government had the policy of 50 per cent. ownership for new towns, and that this was the answer to everything. That has been the policy since 1966, when it was announced in the House, but, as with some other matters in the new towns, the news has not filtered through to the sharp end. The Minister must know well the latest Report of the New Towns Commission, but if he will look at it again he will see that the performance of the Commission in the sale of houses to tenants is absolutely lamentable, and he will also see why. Although the policy was announced in 1966, nothing is happening. Simply to have a policy is useless; the policy must be put into effect, and this policy is not being put into effect.
During the long passage of the Land Commission Act through the House, we constantly warned the Government that they were setting up an organisation based on a law which was incomprehensible, unfair and unworkable. I wish to give the House one or two examples which have occurred in my constituency to supplement others which have been mentioned from these benches today.
My first example is similar to that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker). It concerns a widow who wishes to build on land which belonged to her husband. Section 61 of the Act grants a concession for land in private ownership on which a dwelling may be built for one member

of the family provided that the land is in the possession of the owner before 23rd September, 1965. In this case, the owner died and the widow now wishes to build, but permission has been refused, although for a different reason from the one given by my hon. Friend.
I have here a letter from the Minister in which he says:
The purpose of this Section of the Act, as you will recall, is to allow the person who may have intended to build a dwelling house, for himself or certain members of his family, on land which he owned before 23rd September, 1965, to do so without incurring a liability for levy … It follows that the exemption is personal to the owner of the land, who must satisfy the strict condition that he held an interest in that land before 23rd September, 1965 …
and he adds that this provision excludes my constituent. That is a different, but equally negative answer. It seems to be an utterly heartless one.
The next concession which is available comes in Section 62, where there is a concession for a builder or developer who owns land before 23rd September, 1965.
In this case, there were two builders who owned parcels of land. For the purposes of development, it was found inconvenient for A to develop the whole of his land, and he needed to use a little of B's land. The same applied to B. As a result, A and B agreed to swap a small portion of land to make their developments more simple. They were both entitled to the concession, having owned their respective parcels of land before 1965. However, that did not apply to the land that they swapped, which ceased to be in their possession before 1965. The levy is to be charged on that land.
That seems a reasonable case where the Minister might be generous. However, he writes:
The reasons which prompted the exchange of land are understandable, but the situation is that while the developer had an interest in some of the land immediately before 23rd September 1965, his interest in the other part of the land only derived from the exchange after that date. The result is, unfortunately, the same as if the second piece of land has been acquired by an additional purchase. The exemption provisions of Section 62 contain conditions which must be strictly applied, and the Commission have no discretion to grant concessions.
Once again, we must stick to the strict letter of the law. In my opinion, the law is stupid.
I turn to another case, arising once again in my constituency. It has occurred twice, in fact. It concerns a house with a large garden, and they were sold separately. In such a situation, if the garden is sold first and then the house, the garden pays levy, but, when calculating the levy, according to Case A in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 4, Part I, one is entitled to calculate the depreciation of the value of the house as a result of the garden being taken away from it. In other words, there is a reduction in the levy payable on the garden. When, subsequently, the house comes to be sold, the levy is payable on the price raised on the house.
Two of my constituents did not go about it in the right way, unfortunately. They sold their houses first, and then their gardens. In such a case, it works in another way. When calculating the value of the house, one is entitled to deduct from it the loss of value of the garden. This value must be infinitesimal, so little is the reduction made on the levy when paid up on the house. When, subsequently, the garden is sold, the full levy is payable on the garden.
The House will see that in this case it depends when the two sales are made, whether the sale of the house is first and then the garden or the garden first and then the house. What would happen if both were sold at the same time would produce an entirely different situation. By selling at different times the seller must remember that the operative date that the Land Commission takes is the date of the conveyance or transfer, not the date of contract. In settling the contract the seller wants to know how much levy is payable to decide whether it is worth selling the house or garden, but he has to sign the contract not knowing what the date of completion will be and, therefore, whether he will pay a greater or lesser sum in levy. Here again, we have a bit of a nonsense.
The Minister cannot complain that these cases have not been brought to his attention. They have. In each case I have read from a letter from him, but in this case it is from his predecessor:
Where land is sold in circumstances which bring it within Case A, paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 4 to the Act provide that an allowance shall be included in base value in respect of the depreciation caused to other

land which, immediately before that sale, was held with the land now sold. A good example for illustrating this allowance is that given by your constituents, of a house with a large garden which is divided into building plots. If the building plots are sold first the allowance will be the amount by which the house has depreciated in value as a result of the sale of a part of the garden. If the house is sold first the reverse situation applies.
You will appreciate that the calculation of the depreciation is a matter of valuation and that I cannot say which would be the most advantageous course to follow in a particular case. However, I would expect that the depreciation to the house as a result of the severance of part of the garden would normally be greater than the depreciation to the garden as a result of the sale of the house. I cannot agree that the Act is anomalous if a person receives a greater allowance by arranging his affairs one way as opposed to another.
This shows that the Land Commission Act gives rise to a whole lot of thoroughly stupid decisions and puzzlement on the part of those who have to try to live with it. The three examples that I have given have been considered by the Government. They are apparently perfectly happy and are prepared to live with stupidities such as that. I have asked the Government to amend the law. They do not think that it is necessary. In consequence, I can only welcome my hon. Friend's pledge that we shall abolish the Land Commission as soon as possible.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: I hope that the House will excuse me if I do not follow the argument of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), who has led us to the bottom of his garden. I will deal with a few points which cause me concern. Before doing so, perhaps the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) will search through his Press cuttings to find some tear-jerking stories. He may remember that only four years ago one did not have to search through a pile of Press cuttings or obtain the services of the Conservative Party Central Office to get a few tear-jerking cases of widows, and so forth. Almost every day of the week in London there were tear-jerking cases of people being turned out on the streets because they had no protection.
When the hon. Gentleman accuses the Government of creating hardship, he might care to recall the kind of things that happened in London before the passing of our rent legislation. If he accuses the Government of preventing home


ownership, he might care to come to my constituency—which is typical of many—which has a number of leasehold houses, and where people whose leases would have fallen in in 1965, or had fallen in then, and who would have been not house owners, but tenants, are now houseowners because of the Government's action in passing the Leasehold Reform Act and making some of its provisions retrospective.
It is curious that in my constituency for some time it was the G.L.C. which resisted people buying their own freeholds. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) was one of the people who, if they had their way, would have prevented thousands of people from owning their homes and made them go back to the status of tenants. The hon. Gentleman would also have made them go back to the status of being decontrolled tenants. It is, therefore, rank and utter hyprocrisy to accuse the Government of deterring the spread of home ownership. That is not the history and the fact of the Government's policy.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) that housing figures for the country as a whole can be deceptive. If one is seeking a true assessment of whether a housing situation is getting better or worse, one must factorise it, look at a particular region, a particular city, or even a particular borough. The housing situation in one London borough can be reasonably good because most people are owner-occupiers and in a fairly high income bracket. In another part of London, perhaps almost a neighbouring borough, the situation can be very much worse. The Government's record is nothing to be ashamed of. The figures achieved are creditable. One has to look at a local neighbourhood and break down the figure.
I, too, have had problems with constituents who have bought pieces of land comparatively cheaply from a relative, have begun to develop the land, and have then found that the levy is payable. It is understandable that they feel aggrieved by the operation of the Act. What offends them is not the notion of paying the levy because there has been a rise in value, but that they have to pay it before they have realised that value. A person who has realised the development value of the

land, has built on it, and then sells the land at a profit, feels no sense of injustice at paying the levy. But a person who gets some land cheaply from a relative and then develops it and finds that he has to pay the levy while he is still in the house, while his building costs and living costs are increased, feels a sense of injustice.
One practical way out of this may be to make greater use of Section 18 of the Act, which gives the Commission the power to grant concessional freeholds. Perhaps my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot recall any case in which the Commission has exercised its power to grant concessionary freeholds. It may be a way out of the difficulty for the owner-occupier who has bought land cheaply, but has not realised its value.
It is a power which should be used more extensively by the Land Commission to allow land to pass to housing associations at below the market value of the land, because in the conurbations co-ownership and cost-rent housing associations are finding it difficult to compete with the private developer. They cater for a class of tenant who is not catered for by the local authority which provides cheaper accommodation, but who cannot afford to buy a house, and it would be of considerable help to housing associations if the Commission were to make use of its power under Section 18 to grant concessionary freeholds.
I think that the Government must pay some attention to what will be a permanent problem, in view of a shortage of building society funds. It is not simply that rates of interest have been going up all over the world. One buys I.C.I, stock and unit trusts, about which the hon. Member for Worcester knows something, and was laughing a moment ago, and gets a 2 per cent. return. What people are looking for is the capital appreciation. It is time that the Government considered allowing some capital incentive to savers in building societies as well as the very high rates of interest which they receive at present.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The Motion is expressed in terms critical of Government policy towards home ownership, and in that form it expresses public


condemnation, as evidenced by opinion polls, of the Government's policy to those who are home owners, those who want to be home owners, those who build the homes for them and those who provide the money for them. The Motion does not try to spell out any alternative policy, but, because the country is obviously convinced that the next Government will be a Conservative Government, it is right that the alternative policy should be known and that in presenting the Motion we should be not only critical and condemnatory but also constructive. I should therefore like, before joining other right hon. and hon. Members in indicting the Government for their policy towards home owners, to state briefly the Conservative policy.
In a phrase, it is to take measures which will be an encouragement and an incentive-to home ownership. That spur would be achieved in four specific ways. The first is by ensuring that there is a steady increase in the number of houses built for owner occupation. We did it before: we can do it again. The number of houses built annually for sale was 10 times greater at the end of the 13 years of Conservative Government than when we came into office—22,000 in 1951 and nearly 220,000 in 1964. In the first four years of this Government, the rate of building of houses for sale went down each year. It rose in the fifth year, but not enough to make up for the previous losses.
Second, we would encourage home ownership by providing a general and genuine 100 per cent. mortgage scheme and by support for mortgages on older houses. Again, we did it before successfully and we can do it again. As those who are in practice in the transfer of property will know, the inability to obtain satisfactory mortgages for the purchase of older houses is the weak link in the chain of sales and purchases. This frequently breaks the chain which leads to the purchase of the newly built house.
Third, we would reform the existing mortgage option scheme so that the non-taxpayer or low taxpayer gets as much benefit from buying his house on mortgage as the standard taxpayer gets. One of my hon. Friends said that the present option scheme is a catastrophic flop, and so it is. My hon. Friend the Member

for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) gave the pledge that we would reform it.
I assure the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) that we will work out the new scheme with the building societies and that it is quite possible, and not impossible, as the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) said. The extraordinary thing which has emerged from the present scheme is that all it has done is partially to cushion the borrower against Government policies which have increased interest rates. The 2 per cent. reduction which the mortgage option scheme gives the borrower has already gone by reason of the increase in mortgage rates. That has occured since the scheme was introduced, and the reduction has therefore not been a concession to the low taxpayer but only a slight cushion against Government policies.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Gentleman is talking of future election promises. Would he be prepared to give a promise on behalf of the Conservative Party that hon. Gentleman opposite would support the right of private tenants to exercise an option to purchase their homes from their landlords?

Mr. Page: No. I would certainly not give such a promise in the form in which the hon. Gentleman put it. I am not signing a blank cheque on the back of his Private Member's Bill. If he would care to let me see his Bill I will consider whether or not to support it.
The fourth point is that we will remove restrictions on the sale of council houses. Wherever there has been a scheme for the sale of those houses, the clever psychologists and sociologists who predicted that no one would buy them have been confounded by the popularity of those schemes.
I admit that when these four items are implemented they will benefit concerns in which I must declare an interest; a housing society, a building society, a property trust company and a firm of solicitors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] As policies, they are none the worse for that.
The Minister of State taunted me to say what a Conservative Government would put in the place of the Betterment Levy. Throughout our debates on the Land Commission Act we made our position


clear. On that occasion we did not have the pleasure of the company of the present Minister of State. We have had the pleasure of two ex-Ministers of State speaking in this debate. One gets nostalgic about the Ministers of State at this Ministry. We have seen two of them off. The right hon. Gentleman had better be careful.
I return to the Minister's taunt. We said throughout our debates on the Measure that we recognised that profits from dealings in land were legitimate taxable sums and that, if such profits were to be taxed, they should be taxed through the normal taxation administration. If the Minister thinks that I am going further and say what amount such a tax should be he can think again, because I am not having a Select Committee appointed to see what secrets I am leaking.
The Minister claimed that the number of new houses built in 1968 was a double record, that there had never been so many built in one year and that the Government could be proud of this record. I congratulate the Minister for brazening it out like that. He has had a dirty job to do. He has had to eat not only his senior Minister's words but the words of the Prime Minister, and they must have been very indigestible for him.
The Minister tried to explain away why the Prime Minister—not somebody hoping to be Prime Minister in the course of a General Election, but somebody who had been Prime Minister for 17 months—had said, not in the excitement of an election meeting but in a straight-forward pledge, on 27th March, 1966, that by 1970 we would be achieving no less than 500,000 new dwellings.
The present Minister of Housing and Local Government had the unpleasant job in January, 1968, of saying that that Government did not expect to reach 500,000 houses in 1970. Indeed, with the few houses started in 1968 and the fewer starts anticipated during this year, we will be lucky to get 400,000 this year and in 1970.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester asked what the target was now. Whether we call it a target or what the Government expect the builders to build, I do not mind. If the Minister says he is not a "targeteer", let us hear from

him or from the Parliamentary Secretary how many houses we are expected to have built this year and in 1970. Are we merely to hope for the best, or have the Government any firm plan for ensuring that we shall at least get to the 400,000 mark?
Never mind, said the Minister of State, in 1968 there was the highest figure ever for new houses and in 1968 the highest figure ever for houses built for private owners. I remind him that in 1968 there was the highest figure for the population of the country and the highest figure for the number of married couples. That is a fairly good estimate of how many families require homes. There would be something very wrong if in those circumstances the new houses figure was not the highest on record. To claim this as such a glorious record is whistling in the dark. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) said, and I agree with him, that if this is a record it is a record which came four years too late because this amount could have been built in 1965.
The average annual rate of increase since 1964 was 8,000 a year, but that is gross. Taking into account demolitions and closures, the average net annual increase since 1964 was only 5,500 houses, but in the number of married couples there is a net increase of 90,000 each year. An increase of 5,500 houses against the increase of 90,000 married couples looks a little sick. In the private sector there is not even an increase of 5,500 to set against that figure but a decrease, an average reduction in the rate of building in the private sector of 1,000 a year.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The hon. Gentleman says that he would regard it as peculiar if the Government did not succeed in increasing year by year the total output of houses, why was it that in a number of years Conservative Administrations failed to do just that?

Mr. Page: If we take a graph over those years, we find there was a pretty steady rise—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—it may have some curves in it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but it was certainly rising and not falling. The building of houses in the private sector in the first four years of this Government fell very rapidly.
Perhaps it is claimed that the deterrent to home ownership which have emerged during this Government's term of office are not deliberate but merely incidental to the general economic policy of this Government. If that is the excuse, it shows that the Government are still classing house purchase as spending on consumer goods. It is a spending to be included, I imagine, in the mind of this Government for receiving all the penalties of freezes, squeezes, little budgets, devaluations and so on.
House purchase is and should be treated as a major form of saving. It stimulates the creation of a national asset, a house. It is deflationary, not inflationary, and should be given the V.I.P. treatment of preference and priorities accorded to other savings. Instead, under this Government, house builders are swept in with others who are accused of employing too much labour and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester pointed out, pay nearly £3 a week per man to meet S.E.T. and the National Insurance stamp. Of course this is passed on, as in every other trade, to the purchaser. House builders are swept in, too, with others who must suffer from import surcharges, import deposits and the rest.
In my constituency there is a considerable timber trade interest. The timber merchants tell me that they have to sell to the building and furnishing trades at much higher prices to take into account the 10 per cent. surcharge, the results from devaluation and, now, as a result of the import deposits there is a 2½ per cent. increase in prices. In all these general financial burdens, if the Government had been really anxious to encourage home ownership they could have made concessions. They could have granted reliefs against S.E.T., the import surcharges, and the import deposits, but they stubbornly refused to listen to proposals from this side of the House which would have relieved the builders and which would have helped to provide the cheaper houses.
In face of all this, it is not surprising that the average house which cost £3,500 in 1964 now costs £4,500 and mortgage instalments are up by 50 per cent. The hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) suggested that house prices go up 7 per cent. every year.

He had probably been reading the Sunday Telegraph a few weeks ago, which forecast a 7 per cent. increase in house prices for 1969. This means another £340 in the price of the average house.
The Minister said that prices had risen more during the last five years of Conservative Government than during the five years of the present Government.

Mr. K. Robinson: Four years.

Mr. Page: Four years or five years. I have taken the precaution during the debate to get the figures, and I tell the House that that is not true. I have the figures with me. The difference is a rise of £793 per council house during that period of Socialist Government compared with £621 during the previous period. [Interruption.] The Minister of State says he wants percentages. I believe in telling the public that the price of a house has increased by £1,000 in the last four years.
The Government could have given relief to individual house owners to assist them in home ownership relief against credit restrictions from time to time. They could have given relief to help the intending purchaser of a house who has been unable to get what is called a bridging loan from his bank. Too often lack of that facility has caused complete disorganisation of home buying.
Not only in buying a house has the prospective home owner been hit. If he wanted to furnish a house he has encountered all the difficulties of hire-purchase deposit, the increased deposit on funiture, increased removal costs and the failure of the Government to reform the law of conveyancing so that legal costs could be reduced. This is not an insignificant matter.
Let me quote the Prime Minister in his own election address in 1964. He said:
One hundred per cent. mortgages, lower interest rates and cheaper legal charges.
Not one of those things has come about. Instead, there has been increased legal work which has caused increases in legal charges. By the extreme difficulty of the Statutes and the Statutory Instruments which the Government have presented to the country, the cost of transactions on property has increased.
That brings me to the major nigger in the woodpile or spanner in the works—the Land Commision. The Land Commission was proclaimed, in a White Paper and in all the debates on the Land Commission Bill, as something which would bring forward land for development and bring down its price. Many times during the passage of the Bill we were told that the villain of the piece was the developer who was hoarding the land. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) will confirm that he told me that again and again during the passage of the Bill. It was the developers who were hoarding the land. In fact, as the Financial Times said the other day in an editorial, it proved to be a complete myth. We have had it admitted during the debate that the villains of the piece in hoarding land are the local authorities. Sir Henry Wells himself made a public statement to that effect on 21st November.
The hon. and learned Member for Derby, North asked what we would do about it. How would we get the "white" land released by the local authorities? I say frankly that we should be active in seeing that it was released. I am pleased to know that the Minister for Planning and Land has been meeting the local authorities on this basis. But this is five years after the Government came into office. That is why the price of land is going up.
In my own area of Merseyside, there is some terror of the activities of the Land Commission—and rightly so. The Minister mentioned 100 cases in which the Land Commission has in some way or another caused land to come forward for building. A quarter of those cases were in the North-West. The result is that both the local authorities and the developers are nervous of the activities of the Land Commission. They are not bringing land forward for development because they do not wish to attract the attention of the Land Commission, and land coming up for auction now in the North-West is reaching prices 60 per cent. more than 12 months ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt) confirmed increases in prices of up to 40 per cent. in his area. One of the factors in the price increase, of course, is the great unknown: no one knows what the

levy will be, and no one can tell. Therefore, the vendor is determined to cover himself by high reserve prices at auction and high asking prices.
Those who have not become involved in this business would not realise the complications of Betterment Levy, the way everything goes to the district valuer and the clogging-up of the district valuer's proper functions. Incidentally, the clogging up of the district valuer's office by Land Commission deals has brought housing society work almost to a standstill. It is causing almost a collapse in the housing society system.
Very great concern has been shown by several hon. Members about the way in which the Land Commission and all its procedures have hit the home owner. Of course, his residence ought to have been omitted from the Bill altogether, in the same way as it is for Capital Gains Tax. We have heard of case after case of the development of the garden of a house, the sale of the residence, and so on, in which great hardship has been caused to the individual and small home owner.
The Land Commission Act is, possibly, the most muddled legislation ever put through the House. It is unfair. It is unjust. It is inhuman. It is a wicked Act. We are told that careful thought was given to some of the Amendments which we proposed to the Bill and which would have avoided the hardships. If our Amendments had been accepted, there would have been none of these cases of hardship. Our Amendments would have cured the hardship cases of which we have heard, but these Amendments were thrown aside at the time by the Government.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House what amendments his Minister will put forward? Will they meet the sort of hardship cases which have been cited in the debate? He must consider both the exclusion of the owner-occupier and the exclusion of such small amounts that they are not worth collecting. Secondly, I ask whether any of the permitted action under the Act is to take place. I hope not. I hope that there will be no increase in the levy and that the second appointed day will not be appointed. Thirdly, will anything be done quickly to improve the option mortgage scheme?
Finally, I return to the question of the target of 500,000 houses. What complacency we have heard today from the Government Front Bench and the Government back benches about broken pledges—the casual tossing aside of election pledges which were given as solemnly and firmly as any could be given. The pledges were given by the Prime Minister and not merely Ministers or insignificant back benchers; they were not merely pledges about lower interest rates, cheaper houses and easier mortgages, but a firm pledge for 500,000 houses a year by 1970. All these were casually tossed aside, and when today we accuse the Government of breaking that pledge the Minister said, "Why talk about it now? We broke that pledge over a year ago."
Even more casual has been the attitude of the Minister of Housing and Local Government himself. He has chosen not to speak in this important debate and not to answer our charges of broken pledges. Will he tell the House what is to be done with the Land Commission, or how he is going to cope with the hardship cases? He is the Cabinet Minister who should be answering the debate. These are serious charges, and if he is not prepared to answer them we can only conclude that the Government do not care about their housing policy being in ruins—and if they do not care, let them get out and let us tackle the job.

9.33 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColI): The one thing—[Interruption.]

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. Is it in order for hon. Members who have not put in an appearance throughout the debate to enter the Chamber and act like an unruly lot of students?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): That is not a legitimate point of order, but I am sure that the House would like to hear the Minister.

Mr. MacColl: The one thing that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said that I agreed with was his warning—a good warning before Lent—that the besetting sin which might affect our Government is complacency. That is true. We have a very difficult job to

do under very difficult conditions, and the last thing in the world that we should do is to accept any standard that we achieve as being beyond criticism.
The superb timing which has been mentioned more than once during the debate—the moving of a Motion of censure just when the Government have broken all records in housing—[Interruption.]
I will deal, first, with the point raised by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) about the breakdown of the statistics of the levy between the different countries. The £15 million is split as follows: England, £13½ million; Wales, £1 million; Scotland, £500,000.
The hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones)—I hope that he will not think me patronising—began a helpful and wise contribution by asking whether we could not do more to speed up planning procedures in local authorities in order to get a quicker and better use of land scheduled for development. That is the whole point of the new Town and Country Planning Act. It provides for giving more scope to local authorities to produce workable plans quickly and for appeals to be decided more quickly. I hope that, as it gets into operation, we shall find it meeting some of these points.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) raised a number of matters dealing with the social side of the work of the Land Commission, asking whether it could not do more to provide land for non-profit-making purposes by Crownhold or some other method of keeping the land in question down to a cheaper price. The Commission has power to do these things, but I can see that it is difficult for it to decide when it will do them because of the persistent agitation that it should show large profits. If it is continually under fire from the Opposition, demanding that it should put first of all a profit-making test of efficiency, it is difficult, at the same time, to ask it to do more nonprofit-making but socially desirable things. That is one of the aspects which should come to be dealt with, however, as the Commission settles into its work.
On the question of changes in legislation, I have nothing to add to what my


right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Land said. But I want to make one general point. The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) said that the shortage of land was created by planning, and I think that he is right because, unless one is allowing complete anarchy, inevitably planning must control the use of land. It must create restrictions on the use of land and, therefore, it creates the kind of situation which can lead to great profits accruing to one person while others get nothing.
It was for this reason that the 1947 Act included entrenched financial Sections controlling profits. One of the most appalling things which the Tory Government did during their 13 years in power—and that is a pretty extravagant claim—was to dismantle all the financial provisions and leave the whole machine rudderless, without any power to stop great profits being made. They thus made the task of catching up which we faced when we returned to power far more difficult.
I have seen this from outside, and I have seen it from inside in deciding planning appeals on behalf of my right hon. Friend. Some of these cases are very difficult to decide—for example, where one knows that the question of allowing a farmer housing permission for a green field may involve whether or not he gets a vast fortune by development of the land.
I utter this warning to my hon. Friends—that we must be sensitive to these hardship cases, these deep human problems which arise. But we must also remember that it is dangerous to dismantle an essential part of planning control because of hardship cases. We must consider such cases to see what we can do to improve their lot and let the Land Commission machinery get into operation. We should not start to tinker with that machinery until we see the best way to tackle it.
I know that my right hon. Friend meant it when he said in his opening speech that he was always willing to do what he can to deal with any point of difficulty which right hon. and hon. Members bring to his notice.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that all the hardship cases created by the Land Commission

today do not warrant any change in legislation at all?

Mr. MacColl: They do not warrant the wrong changes in the legislation. The important thing is to find out what is the best way of dealing with a particular problem as it arises. It will be quite impossible at this stage to start making changes in the legislation which may open the gate to widespread exploitation and evasion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shocking."] If hon. and right hon. Members are shocked it is because they are not accepting the essential need to do something to get a betterment charge for the benefit of the community.
That does not surprise me, because they were divided and violently evasive in office about this. They failed to tackle the problem, they came up with quite different answers from different Ministers, about it as late as 1963. Clearly, they are no better off now in knowing what they will do.
I come to the background against which we have to deal with the great change in housing and home ownership. To pretend that we are not in a difficult economic situation, which calls for the greatest husbanding of resources seems quite absurd. When the Committee of London Clearing Banks wrote to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, as I read the other day, it was not saying, "We have just seen 'Cathie Come Home'. We demand that you produce a tremendous leap forward in housing starts." It was saying that the public sector spending, not private consumption, had to be cut back. This is the problem facing the Government. With the tremendous limits on public expenditure, which we have undertaken to keep, we must get the best possible value from the best possible use of our resources to provide the housing. To pretend that this background does not exist is running away from realities.
Hon. Members said that the rate of interest is too high, and should be very much lower. No one would deny that. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) made this point in a previous debate. It is foolish to think that we will get the rate of interest down artificially. We have to get it down in the only possible way, which is re-establishing a proper foundation.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) produced a nine-point summary for housing at the Tory Party conference. This dealt with the essentials of Conservative policy. I was interested to see that Mr. Robert McCrindle, who is the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Billericay—[Interruption.] I expect that he would like the support of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite some day—wrote to the right hon. and learned Member saying that in his daily business life he met many people anxious to buy a home. He said:
I would like to pinpoint the areas of difficulty and outline how Tory policy can help. First, interest rates. There is great exaggeration as to the number of people these prevent from buying their own homes. Tories risk misleading people by giving the impression that rates will quickly fall. Who knows what economic situation will be inherited on our return to office.
I am not concerned about a long-range economic forecast to the day when there is a change of Government. But, accepting that the present level of interest rates in the market is fixed by international forces as much as anything else, we must accept it as a basis on which we can operate. We have done this in two vital ways: by the subsidy for public sector building which is geared to the rate of interest, and by the option mortgage scheme.
The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) painted a remarkable picture of the Conservative Government toiling away, trying to do more and more for the home owner. Suddenly, there is a disastrous election and the Tories are swept out of office and the whole scheme stopped and was ruined. But they have never told us why they did not introduce an option mortgage scheme. They had 13 years in which to work out a scheme. We had to work it out and improvise something to meet the difficulty. Our scheme has not yet been in operation a year. It came into operation in April last year. Yet already we are told that it has been condemned.
The hon. Member for Worcester gave the interesting pledge that he would get rid of the one-way choice and have a contracting-out and contracting-in procedure. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved)

gave a warning and wondered whether the hon. Gentleman had the co-operation of the building societies for his suggestion. I remind him of what the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) said about this in Committee on the Housing Act, 1967, where we did not have the advantage of the assistance of the hon. Member for Worcester. The hon. Member for Poole said that opting out had attractions, but that he had discovered, after research, that there were certain very great administrative difficulties. He pointed out that to reverse the option would cause difficulty from the point of view of the building societies.
Last month, in January, the property correspondent of The Guardian had to admit that it was not the Government who were holding things up; it was the building societies which had insisted that the option must be once for all.

Mr. Peter Walker: If the building societies agree at any stage to a change, will the Government immediately accept it?

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Member for Crosby talked about giving people blank cheques. I am not giving the building societies a blank cheque to the effect that whenever they change their view we shall introduce the necessary legislation. I am saying that we did not have it because the lending agencies would not agree to it.

Mr. Wellbeloved: When my hon. Friend said that the Conservative Party proposed to arrange a contracting-in and contracting-out procedure, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) nodded to my hon. Friend's suggestion that he had got the building societies' consent. Would my hon. Friend undertake to start consultations with the building societies with a view to making some minor amendments in the option mortgage scheme, because there is a small area of difficulty in this matter?

Mr. MacColl: At the moment I am concentrating on getting to the end of my speech. I have dealt with the option mortgage. The position with the 100 per cent. guarantee scheme is even clearer. It was not a matter of the then Government not doing this; it was that the then Minister, Lord Brooke as he now is, was flatly refusing in 1958 to


have a guarantee scheme, primarily because of the hostility of the lending agencies.
I will now deal with the points that have been made about council lending. Anyone who cares about housing recognises that the cuts in council lending are a hardship to the local authorities and to the people whom the local authorities can help. Although councils play an important part in providing loans, the provision made by building societies is much larger. Councils are in competition with other forms of investment and are part of the public sector of investment. Much as we would like to extend their area, this we cannot do.
A London daily newspaper reported that local authorities were annoyed that the Ministry had been trawling around £11 million which had not been spent. It is part of our normal procedure to review what has been happening during the year, so that we can make available to other councils any quotas which are not taken up. We have sent circulars to local authorities saying how important it is that they should let us know what is the situation and warning them that quotas not fully taken up by the end of the year could not be taken forward.
When we took stock at the end of 1968 we found an unexpected sum of £11 million was available. Some newspapers thought that it was odd that we should have used the telephone to tell councils about this and invite them to let us know whether they could use the money. Had we wanted to, we could have waited until after the weekend and avoided the work. Instead, we made use of the telephone and offered the money. The newspapers wanted to know where the windfall had come from.
According to another London daily some local authorities in remoter areas where the mortgage situation is not so acute had not taken up the full quota in the current year. It is a romantic picture of the clerk of a rural district council arriving windswept on our doorstep saying, "I have found £1 million in the teapot. I am sure that you would like to make use of it."
But the story is not so romantic as that. The authority from the remoter area with no need for mortgages was

the Greater London Council. It had not allocated £15 million. After the windfall had been discovered the chairman of the Finance Committee of the Council was still saying that the Council had been lending at the rate of £60 million and had budgeted for £10 million next year. It is rather odd that it had been unable to use, and did not expect by the end of the financial year to use, more than £4 million.
The chairman of the Housing Committee was a little more realistic. "Interest rates are so high. Who wants to borrow money?" he asked. That is an arguable view, but it is hardly compatible with launching tremendous agitation for more home loans.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: On a point of order. Should not the Minister address the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, instead of addressing his back benchers?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the Chair to call the Minister to attention. I think that the Minister was quite in order.

Mr. MacColl: London is an area which has an acute mortgage situation. It is all the sadder that the Greater London Council's inability to use the resources at its disposal prevented Londoners from having mortgages available to them. We therefore made a special point of seeing that the London boroughs were invited to take their share. Nineteen of them acted quickly and took £1½ million between them. Harrow, unfortunately, was not able to take any. In the provinces, Manchester and Liverpool took allocations. Many quite small local authorities took some. Birmingham, however—the largest and wealthiest of the county boroughs—told us that it did not require any.
I am asked what are the prospects of housing for next year. I would only say this. We were told that there were not enough houses under construction to provide the target of 400,000. There are 20,000 more houses under construction now than were in the under-construction pipeline which we inherited from the last Conservative Government and which, hon. Members opposite have said, was a legacy which explained the whole of our successful housing policy.
We are prepared to see that every housing authority with real housing need


is not stopped; we are prepared to give them all the assistance they want, but we have no power to make a local authority build houses if it does not want to. Therefore, the decision primarily will depend on what I would call the ability—some of my hon. Friends use rather

blunter language—of some of the newly-elected councils as to whether they are prepared to build.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 303.

Division No. 57.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Marten, Neil


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gibson-Watt, David
Maude, Angus


Astor, John
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mawby, Ray


Awdry, Daniel
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Balniel, Lord
Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gower, Raymond
Miscampbell, Norman


Bell, Ronald
Grant, Anthony
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Monro, Hector


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gresham Cooke, R.
Montgomery, Fergus


Biffen, John
Grieve, Percy
More, Jasper


Biggs-Davison, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Blaker, Peter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F,
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Murton, Oscar


Body, Richard
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Neave, Airey


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Onslow, Cranley


Braine, Bernard
Hastings, Stephen
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Brewis, John
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. SirW alter
Hay, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Peel, John


Bryan, Paul
Heseltine, Michael
Percival, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Higgins, Terence L.
Peyton, John


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hiley, Joseph
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hill, J. E. B.
Pink, R. Bonner


Burden, F. A.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pounder, Rafton


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)
Hooson, Emlyn
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Carlisle, Mark
Hordern, Peter
Prior, J. M. L.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hornby, Richard
Pym, Francis


Channon, H. P. G.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hunt, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Clark, Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Clegg, Walter
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cooke, Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cordle, John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Corfield, F. V.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ridsdale, Rt. Hn. Julian


Costain, A. P.
Jopling, Michael
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)


Crowder, F. P.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Royle, Anthony


Currie, G. B. H.
Kershaw, Anthony
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kimball, Marcus
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dance, James
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dean, Paul
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sharples, Richard


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lane, David
Silvester, Frederick


Donnelly, Desmond
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sinclair, Sir George


Doughty, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mingto


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, John (London & W'minster)


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Speed, Keith


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Longden, Gilbert
Stainton, Keith


Eden, Sir John
Loveys, W. H.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lubbock, Eric
Stodart, Anthony


Emery, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Errington, Sir Eric
MacArthur, Ian
Summers, Sir Spencer


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Tapsell, Peter


Farr, John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fisher, Nigel
McMaster, Stanley
Taylor, EdwardM.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fortescue, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Temple, John M.


Foster, sir John
Maddan, Martin
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret



Maginnis, John E.
Tilney, John



Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.




van Straubenzee, W. R.
Ward, Dame Irene
Worsley, Marcus


Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Weatherill, Bernard
Wright, Esmond


Vickers, Dame Joan
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wylie, N. R.


Waddington, David
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Younger, Hn. George


Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)



Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn, Sir Derek
Wills, Geoffrey (Truro)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wall, Patrick
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Watters, Dennis
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. Reginald Eyre.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Ennals, David
Kenyon, Clifford


Albu, Austen
Ensor, David
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Allen, Scholefield
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lawson, George


Anderson, Donald
Faulds, Andrew
Ledger, Ron


Archer, Peter
Femyhough, E.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Ashley, Jack
Finch, Harold
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lee, John (Reading)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. SirEric (lslington, E.)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foley, Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Barnes, Michael
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Barnett, Joel
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lipton, Marcus


Beaney, Alan
Ford, Ben
Lomas, Kenneth


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Forrester, John
Loughlin, Charles


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Fowler, Gerry
Luard, Evan


Bidwell, Sydney
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Binns, John
Freeson, Reginald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bishop, E. S.
Galpern, Sir Myer
McBride, Neil


Blackburn, F.
Gardner, Tony
McCann, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Garrett, W. E.
MacColl, James


Booth, Albert
Ginsburg, David
MacDermot, Niall


Boston, Terence
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Macdonald, A. H.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McGuire, Michael


Boyden, James
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gregory, Arnold
Mackie John


Bradley, Tom
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mackintosh, John P.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Maclennan, Robert


Brooks, Edwin
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Buchan, Norman
Hamling, William
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hannan, William
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Harper, Joseph
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Haseldine, Norman
Manuel, Archie


Cant, R. B.
Hattersley, Roy
Mapp, Charles


Carmichael, Neil
Hazell, Bert
Marks, Kenneth


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Marquand, David


Coe, Denis
Heffer, Eric S.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Concannon, J. D.
Henig, Stanley
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Conlan, Bernard
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Maxwell, Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Hilton, W. S.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Cronin, John
Hobden, Dennis
Mendelson, John


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hooley, Frank
Mikardo, Ian


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Horner, John
Millan, Bruce


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Dalyell, Tam
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Molloy, William


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Howie, W.
Moonman, Eric


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hoy, James
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Delargy, Hugh
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, Roland


Dell, Edmund
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Dempsey, James
Hunter, Adam
Murray, Albert


Dewar, Donald
Hynd, John
Neal, Harold


Dickens, James
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Newens, Stan


Dobson, Ray
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Doig, Peter
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Norwood, Christopher


Driberg, Tom
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oakes, Gordon


Dunnett, Jack
Jeger, George (Goole)
Ogden, Eric


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
O'Malley, Brian


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Oram, Albert E.


Eadie, Alex
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Orbach, Maurice


Edelman, Maurice
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Orme, Stanley


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oswald, Thomas


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Ellis, John
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


English, Michael
Judd, Frank
Padley, Walter



Kelley, Richard
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)







Paget, R. T.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Palmer, Arthur
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Rowlands, E.
Wallace, George


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Ryan, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Sheldon, Robert
Weitzman, David


Pavitt, Laurence
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wellbeloved, James


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Whitaker, Ben


Pentland, Norman
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
White, Mrs. Elrene


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitlock, William


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Silverman, Julius
Wilkins, W. A.


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Slater, Joseph
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Small, William
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Snow, Julian
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Price, William (Rugby)
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Probert, Arthur
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Randall, Harry
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Rankin, John
Swain, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huylon)


Rees, Merlyn
Swingler, Stephen
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Taverne, Dick
Winnick, David


Richard, Ivor
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Woof, Robert


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Thornton, Ernest
Wyatt, Woodrow


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Tinn, James



Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tomney, Frank
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Tuck, Raphael
Mr. Charles Grey and


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Varley, Eric G.
Mr. loan L. Evans.


Roebuck, Roy
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

FILES AND RASPS (CUSTOMS DUTY)

10.12 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): I beg to move,
That the Anti-Dumping Duty (No. 2) Order 1968 (SI., 1968, No. 2063), dated 30th December 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd January 1969, be approved.
This Order has been made under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, as amended by the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) (Amendment Act 1968. It imposes anti-dumping duties ranging from 5d. to 35s. per dozen on files and rasps originating in Portugal and ranging from 4s. to 20s. per dozen on files and rasps originating in Australia. In accordance with normal practice, there is provision for relief under Section 3 of the 1957 Act in respect of any imports which are shown to the Board of Trade's satisfaction not to be dumped or not to be dumped to the full extent of the relevant duties.
An application alleging dumping, with consequent material injury, was received from the British industry in March, 1968. Following discussions with the industry and the provision of certain essential additional information, the Board of Trade was satisfied that a prima facie case had been made for an investigation. A public announcement that the Board were considering the application was made on 28th June 1968, in which representations from interested parties were invited.
This is not the first time that the British industry has sought anti-dumping action on imports of files and rasps from Portugal. Following an earlier application some years ago, the Board of Trade found that there was dumping by the Portuguese supplier, but was not satisfied that the rate of imports from Portugal and their trend were such as to cause or threaten material injury to the British industry. When rejecting that application in September 1963, it was made clear to the Portuguese that any increase in imports at dumped prices would no doubt lead to a fresh application and that it could not be assumed that the same decision would then be reached.
In fact, shipments from Portugal continued to decline in 1964 and there were no significant increases in 1965 and 1966.

However, there was a considerable increase during 1967 and again in the early months of 1968. In addition, an Australian supplier first entered the British market in a significant way in the second half of 1967. These developments led to a renewed application from the British industry. Our inquiries established that imports from both sources were being dumped by substantial margins. We were also satisfied that the rate and trend of dumped imports from Portugal and Australia were such that the dumping was causing material injury to the British industry and threatening further injury, and that anti-dumping action against the dumped imports would be in the national interest.
The House will not expect me to give detailed reasons for our findings in relation to dumping and consequent material injury. These were based on financial and other information given to the Board of Trade in strict confidence. However, I can assure the House that, in accordance with our usual practice, the case was investigated most carefully—both in relation to the dumping and also the question of consequent material injury—and our findings were based on a thorough study of all the evidence.
I will comment on the rather complicated Schedule to the Order. Files and rasps vary according to type, cut and size and the margins of dumping that we found vary considerably from item to item. To have imposed the exact margin of dumping on each item would have been impracticable; it would have meant hundreds of different duties, and Customs officers at the ports would not have been able in practice to distinguish between many types. A uniform high rate of duty would have exceeded the margin of dumping that we found on many types and would, therefore, have been unfair to the exporters concerned, despite the provisions we make for refund of duty in such cases.
Conversely, a uniform low rate of duty would not have given the British industry the protection to which it is entitled against the more highly dumped items. The present Schedule represents the best compromise which the Board of Trade could find in consultation with Customs. In the case of Portugal, where the margins of dumping vary more widely, we have sub-divided files and rasps into


three classes and imposed duties varying by size. In the case of Australia, where the dumping margins vary much less by type of file, the Schedule imposes duties varying only by size. The classes and sizing of file are described in the Order in accordance with the recognised British standards.
Both the procedure followed in reaching a decision on this case, and the decision itself, were in conformity with Article VI of the G.A.T.T. and with the provisions of the International Anti-Dumping Code which was agreed as part of the Kennedy Round negotiations. The anti-dumping duties took effect from 3rd January, 1969.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Peter Blaker: My hon. Friends have on many occasions expressed support for freer trade, but there is, of course, nothing inconsistent with that position in welcoming antidumping action in an appropriate case. Indeed, I suggest that the two go together, because as trade gets freer, as we hope it will, the temptations to dump them are more pronounced and the bad effects of dumping on the home producer are more severe. Anti-dumping action therefore becomes more important to take when it is appropriate.
The House will have noted that the two countries from which goods affected by the Order originate are both countries against which there is a nil duty on those goods, namely, Australia, a Commonwealth country, and Portugal, an E.F.T.A. country. It is regrettable that we should have to take anti-dumping action in these two cases, but it is not the first time that anti-dumping action has been taken within either of those groupings and we are, of course, concerned with the action of a very small number of firms in the countries concerned.
I have a question to put to the Minister of State about the relevance of our international obligations to this Order. I believe that no problem arises in the E.F.T.A. case because the E.F.T.A. Convention expressly states that nothing which it contains shall impede the making of anti-dumping Orders. The Australian case is affected by a different agreement, the British-Australian Trade Agreement

of 1957, which does not appear particularly to deal with allegations of dumping by either Australia or Britain. Article 12 refers to dumping by third countries, but as I read the Agreement there is nothing dealing with dumping between Britain and Australia.
Article 14 provides for consultation between Australia and Britain in certain cases, but it does not particularly envisage the case of dumping. I wonder whether the Minister could clear up, because it would be useful to have it on record, what the relevance of the Agreement of 1957 is to anti-dumping Orders, whether the Government consider that Article 14, which provides for consultation between the Government in certain cases, applies and whether those consultations have taken place.
The Minister has given some of the background to this Order. The rise in imports of files and rasps from the two countries has been very striking. I understand that from Portugal, in 1966, the value of files and rasps imported was £51,000, whereas in 1968 it was £94,000, almost double. In the case of Australia the rise has been even more striking. In 1966, according to my information, the value of imports was £109 only, whereas last year it was £40,000 in value. I am informed that imports as a proportion of the value of home sales, which of course is a very significant factor, have risen very markedly from 14 per cent. in 1965 to 22 per cent. in 1967. As to material injury, I understand that the home producers claim that their profits as a result of this action have become very low. In some cases they hardly exist. There has been a fall in the number of firms engaged in home manufacture and a fall in the number of employees engaged in the business. It is not simply a question of fewer but larger firms, but fewer employees.
The House will be aware that none of these adverse effects on the home producer are in themselves enough to establish the case for an anti-dumping Order because, as the Minister explained, more than that has to be proved—not only evidence of dumping, but the actual causing or threatening of material injury and it must be in the view of the Government in the national interest that the Order should be made.
One or the problems in discussing these anti-dumping cases in the House has been referred to by the Minister. It is that much of the evidence the Board of Trade has to examine both as to dumping and material injury is impossible to divulge to the House because it is commercially secret information. Therefore, I cannot press the Minister too far to divulge the nature of the Board's investigations to the House.
I do, however, take the opportunity to express gratitude to the Minister for inviting me personally recently to visit him in his Department and to meet him and his officials to talk about the methods which the Board of Trade adopts in these cases. It is particularly relevant to mention that now because of the difficulty to which I have referred—that he cannot, in public, go into details on these cases. It was reassuring to me to find from the explanations given of the methods adopted in the investigation of these cases, that they appeared to be efficient and conscientious.
Nevertheless I observe that the antidumping code agreed in the Kennedy Round said in 1967 that it is desirable to provide for equitable and open procedures as the basis for a full examination of dumping cases. That encourages me to ask the Minister whether he will tell the House a little more about the methods of investigation adopted in these cases. Did they include, for example, discussions with the overseas suppliers?
The Minister referred to the fact that the Order applied Section 3 of the Statute. May I take him a little further on the subject of exemptions? Will he say whether the overseas suppliers were given an opportunity to undertake that the dumping would cease, which presumably would have meant that the Order would not have been necessary?
The Government have to consider not only the interests of the home producer in these anti-dumping cases. They have also to consider the effect on the home consumer and I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will comment on that. My understanding is that what are concerned are essentially hand tools, each of which is relatively inexpensive and, presumably, has a certain durability. We are talking not about raw materials but about tools of manufacture.
I take it that that means that the effect of the imposition of the duty on the user will to that extent be not too serious. It is true that the duty varies from a few percentage points up to 60 per cent. of the value of the tools in some cases. Nevertheless, for the reasons which I have given, I infer that the effect on consumer prices of the goods manufactured by using these tools is unlikely to be too serious. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
Will he also comment on the effect on supplies in the home market? He will have seen in the Financial Times of 3rd January that the United Kingdom representative of a Portuguese undertaking said that, in his view, the action of the Board of Trade amounted to a total prohibition of the company's imports into the United Kingdom. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that point. Will he say whether, in his view, there is an adequate number of suppliers in the United Kingdom and whether competition in this market will continue to exist? Have the Board of Trade felt it necessary to seek any assurance from the United Kingdom manufacturers, whether on supplies or on prices?
I believe that the Minister has made out a case for this Order. We on this side of the House do not intend to oppose it. But I hope that in his reply the Minister will deal with the questions which I asked, for the House would like to have the answers on the record.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. George Darling: It would be appropriate for me to express on behalf of the manufacturers and workers engaged in the file trade industry their thanks to my hon. Friend for introducing the Order. I have been asked by the Sheffield Amalgamated Union of the File Trades, which has a total membership of about 250, practically the whole of the workers engaged in the trade, officially to thank my right hon. Friend on their behalf.
I agree with the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) that we need to look very carefully at antidumping Orders, and I also agree that the more free trade we have, the better. But I do not think the hon. Member would object if I said that what we are seeking is free and fair trade.
There is a problem in that the industry is in the process of contracting, but not of reducing its production. The number of firms is contracting and fewer employees are being employed as the industry goes through a process of rationalisation. We should look at antidumping Orders, including this one, from another point of view. We do not want such Orders to be used to protect inefficiency. In this connection, we can be pleased to put on record that the union to which I have referred is very much concerned about conditions in the industry and is in favour of its being examined to make sure that it comes up to proper standards of efficiency. I realise that this is really a matter for the Ministry of Technology, and I sincerely hope that the Ministry will look carefully at the organisation of the industry to make sure that it does, with whatever help the Government can give, come up to an appropriate standard of efficiency.
I have two other aspects of the matter to raise, and these relate to the importation of files from India. There is some concern in the trade in Sheffield—there are, I think, only two firms engaged in the industry outside the City of Sheffield—that files from India are being dumped—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, we cannot amend the Order.

Mr. Darling: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I shall therefore merely remark, to put it on the record, that I know that my hon. Friend has looked into this matter also, as well as the question of the Ministry of Defence buying files from overseas, which has some relation to this Order.
We are pleased in Sheffield, both employers and workers, that the Order has been brought forward. Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the work he has gone in carrying out the investigations and making sure that the wishes of both sides in the industry have been met in this way.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: I endorse what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling).

Sheffield Members of Parliament have been under considerable pressure for some years—for many years, one might say—on this question of dumping, but it is always a little difficult for the ordinary back bencher or those without access to the information which the Government can have to know whether an allegation of dumping is justified. One hears a lot of allegations about the dumping of various materials and products, and there has always been some question as to how far they can be justified.
The House will recall that the late Member for Brightside, Dick Winter-bottom, raised this matter on many occasions. We were never able to get a clear exposition of the situation or confirmation that there was dumping or that there was something to be said on the other side. I am considerably relieved, therefore, that the Minister has brought in the Order, and I am satisfied from what he said that the Government have completely confirmed that these files from Portugal and Australia come within the category of dumping.
As has been said, Portugal is a member of the E.F.T.A. group. Is there not a provision under the E.F.T.A. agreement that the Government of a country from which dumped goods come have some responsibility in the matter? If so, has the Minister had consultations with the Portuguese Government, and over what period? If he is satisfied that his information is correct, why have not the Portuguese Government taken some steps themselves?

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Dell: First, I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) for the appreciation which he expressed regarding his visit to my Department and the information and assistance given to him on that occasion by my officials. Also, I express gratitude to my predecessor as Minister of State at the Board of Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Darling). Nothing is more warming to my heart than approval from him. My right hon. Friend referred to the Indian situation. On that, I need say no more than that an application has now been made and that if a prima facie case is made, we will, of course, proceed to a full investigation.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, South asked about the relevance to the situation of the 1957 Anglo-Australian Agreement. Nothing in that Agreement prohibits either country from taking anti-dumping action which is consistent with our international commitments under Article 6 of G.A.T.T. Both countries have, in fact, taken anti-dumping action against the other. Of course, we keep the Australian High Commission informed of our investigations.
The hon. Member asked whether all parties were kept informed and given an opportunity to comment, and about the method by which the inquiry was carried out. Officials from the Board's tariff division carried out a detailed on-the-spot investigation in the offices of the Portuguese manufacturer concerned and there were discussions with his agent in London. The Australian manufacturer supplied very full information in writing and this was supplemented by discussion in London with his export manager in the course of a visit by the latter to the United Kingdom.
Users of the products submitted their views, both direct and through the importer concerned. The views of all interested parties were, therefore, fully covered and there was a full investigation, including the material injury aspect, in the form of a detailed inquiry by Board of Trade accountants into the financial affairs of the main United Kingdom producers in recent years. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South asked an important question about whether the interests of the users had been borne in mind. Indeed they were, as I have just said. Their views were taken both directly and indirectly through the importer concerned.
As to price, it is certainly my hope that there will be no increase in price as a result of the Order. Indeed, the better use of British capacity which, I hope, will result from the Order should keep prices steady. I have no evidence that supplies will be inadequate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) asked about provisions under the E.F.T.A. Convention and discussions with the Portuguese Government. Article 17 of the Convention states that nothing in the Convention shall prevent a member

State from taking action against dumped or subsidised imports consistently with its other international obligations. We did, of course, keep the Portuguese Government informed of our action in this respect.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, South asked whether the Portuguese and Australian suppliers were given the opportunity to give suitable undertakings in lieu of the imposition of anti-dumping duties. With the large number of sizes and cuts of files and rasps involved and the varying margins of dumping found, the Board considered that any offer to accept undertakings from the dumpers to stop supplying at dumped prices, with the firm administrative safeguard which the Board would require, would be bound to lead to considerable delay. In all the circumstances of the case, the Board did not feel able to delay the imposition of anti-dumping duties beyond 3rd January, 1969. We have, however, informed the Portuguese and Australian suppliers that we should be prepared to consider suspending, and ultimately revoking, the Order if at any stage in the future they give an undertaking to operate the necessary safeguards to stop dumping.
I think that I have dealt with the questions that were put to me, and I hope that the House will approve the Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Anti-Dumping Duty (No. 2) Order, 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 2063), dated 30th December, 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd January, 1969, be approved.

BUILDING SITE, HOUNSLOW (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Russell Kerr: My remarks will be brief, Mr. Speaker, both because of the lateness of the hour and also because I am anxious, before my hon. Friend the Minister rises to reply, to allow time for my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to catch your eye and to give the House the benefit of his great knowledge of the building industry, which is


the industry we are concerned with in this short debate.
The matter I wish to raise is the industrial dispute at the Ivy Bridge building site in the London borough of Hounslow, which has now been at a standstill for nearly 17 weeks, with some 500 building workers locked out and—even more important—with some 1,000 families, many of them my constituents, still unable to be admitted to the homes they have waited for for so long.
The question hon. Members may well ask is, how has this tragic situation come about? Obviously, simple answers to questions like this are seldom possible. My experience as a long-standing and senior trade unionist tells me that usually there are complex reasons behind industrial trouble and that one's first assessments are frequently not one's final assessments. Situations are seldom black and white.
But, looking into the facts of this dispute between Turriff's and the building workers, who are fully backed by their unions, so that this is a 100 per cent. official dispute, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Turriff's has acted in a way offensive to every acknowledged canon of good industrial relations and which, indeed, might well have been rejected by Herr Alfred Krupp in dealing with his slave labour during the Second World War.
In the time at my disposal, I cannot set out in detail the events which led up to the total stoppage of this 1,000-plus home units site. Suffice to say that the situation took a sharp nose-dive following one particularly arrogant action by the local management—which, it is interesting to note, has been changed four or five times since the job began, as sure an indication of poor quality top management as it is possible to come by, if my experience is anything to go by.
For its own reasons, the management, it seems, was anxious that the job should proceed with maximum speed and, after detailed negotiations, concluded a bonus scheme with the men and their unions to bring this about. The scheme worked extremely well for a while and, though it meant extremely hard work for them, the men were prepared to accept the speed-up because they were being well

paid, though not excessively, under the agreement.
Out of the blue, one day last autumn, the management announced, without any prior consultation with the men or their unions, that a substantial section of the work force, mainly the semi-skilled and unskilled workers, would be no longer paid in accordance with the agreement. Inevitably, this led to a major disruption of industrial relations at the site, followed by an outrageous succession of blunders by the management, including, believe it or not, the positioning of a squad of Securicor "toughies", plus Alsation dogs, on the site in order to prevent the men from getting on with the job of providing homes for people desperately in need of them.
The whole seamy story of this firm's utter cynicism towards its responsibilities—to the council, to the workers it has so cavalierly locked out and, above all, to the thousands it is keeping homeless by its actions—has been recounted at length, and quite fairly, in national papers as diverse politically as the Morning Star and the Daily Telegraph, as well as in the local Press.
Twice the matter has been before industrial tribunals and each time a verdict against the firm was recorded. The matter has also been before the appropriate committee of the Conservative-controlled Hounslow Borough Council, which, with a procrastination that makes Nero look like a gritty, purposive man of action, though still no doubt an excellent fiddler, has felt powerless to act, despite the acute shortage of council housing in many parts of the borough.
My purpose in raising this matter is simply to draw to the attention of the Government a very serious situation which is gravely affecting the welfare and happiness of some thousands of my constituents and which cannot be allowed to continue. Whether or not the Government think they have adequate powers of intervention, I remind them that there is more than one way of killing a cat and that, if they feel their present powers leave them feeling legally a little impotent, then perhaps they should begin to reflect upon other, less formal ways of insisting upon industrial good manners from Turriff's—not excluding, one would hope, the consideration


that a very sizeable part of the firm's business comes from Government sources.
May I pay my tribute to the men on the site, and their union leaders? Despite a whole series of provocative actions by the management, which someone uncharitably suggested was to be a prelude to the firm withdrawing from the contract because it turned out to be unprofitable, the men have remained cool throughout, and highly responsible. They have played every round in this wretched dispute according to the rules, and with their union's support. If there is to be talk of "wildcat" action in this case it is an epithet which must be firmly pinned on to Turriff's, a firm which has yet to learn the meaning of the words "industrial relations".
I hope that the Department of Employment and Productivity will use its best endeavours to obtain a return to work, and an end to this firm's arrogant behaviour.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) who has done an excellent job on behalf of the workers in the industry, and the people in his constituency, in raising this matter. My particular interest in this matter is that a considerable number of workers involved, those who were locked out and who went on official dispute, are members of the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, the union to which I belong. I have read all the documents in this case, supplied by the unions and the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives.
I have never read a worse case of industrial non-relations. We in the building industry are used to tough employers—it is a tough industry. We have a very difficult time existing under decent conditions on any building site. I was amazed to find that in this case an agreement had been arrived at and successfully operated for approximately 18 months, and, because on the basis of a productivity agreement, the workers were earning a reasonable amount of bonus, the employers felt that this was too high. Without any prior negotiations they broke this agreement and terminated the previous scheme.
No workers are prepared to accept this arbitrary action on the part of employers. We often hear about workers taking unofficial action, strike action, as though there was nothing preceding it. This was a very good example where employers were responsible for this action by the workers. Because the workers were not prepared to accept a future, imposed, agreement the employers have locked out 86 of the workers.
Subsequently, the rest of the workers took action in support of their colleagues. This, incidentally, is very rare in modern times. I am not surprised to hear that the building trade unions reacted in this way. There were two disputes commissions held about this. In the industry such a commission is made up of operatives and employers, in equal numbers. Both commissions—the regional commission and the national commission—have, in essence, come down on the side of the operatives, and urged the firm to accept a return to employment of these workers.
The trade union officials and the employers' representative designated by the commission to go on to the site to try to get a resumption of work have failed up to now to get the firm to allow these workers to resume working. The firm has put all kinds of fantastic conditions in the way which make it obvious that it has no intention to agreeing to the dispute commission's findings. I have seen this amazing document of procedures which the firm says should be adopted by the workers for dismissal or for any problems of industrial conflict. With all my experience in the building industry, I could never have operated on the job if I had to operate under the procedures suggested by the employers. It was obvious that the trade unions could not accept such a dismissal procedure. It was put forward to try to make certain that there was no quick resumption of work.
I know that my hon. Friend has very little power, but perhaps what power and influence the Government have they can use to knock a few heads together—I refer to the employers—in an endeavour to get them to accept the terms of the commission's findings and get a speedy return to work, not only in the interests of the workers who are being deliberately kept out of employment, but in the interests of my hon. Friend's constituents


who are not receiving the homes that they ought to be receiving because of the continuation of this dispute. Once again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising this matter in the House this evening.

10.52 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) has done his constituents and the House a service by raising this matter tonight, although, as his and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, in terms of powers there is perhaps little that the Government can or should do to intervene. Part of the service that my hon. Friend has done is to give the House the opportunity of considering some of the morals which we may well draw from this unhappy affair in the hope that, if the morals are drawn sufficiently clearly and objectively, we may both bring the present dispute to a speedy end and encourage similar disputes in future to be preceded by the sort of thought and preparation which can prevent them coming about.
To explain what I mean, I must briefly go over the history of the dispute, for it is concerned not with one bonus scheme but, in a sense, with two. The story begins with an incentive scheme organised and implemented, with the approval of the unions, on the initiative of the management based on work measurement which was carefully calculated and costed. That was the first incentive scheme, which all Members of the House would approve and endorse.
That was followed by a variety of ad hoc additions, few of which were costed, and virtually none of which were based on the sort of calculations that modern industrial opinion would regard as necessary to make them viable commercial propositions. They in fact constituted a substantial departure from the agreed bonus scheme, although they were agreed from time to time both by the men on the site and by the management. It was this second plethora of individual bonus payments which, on 11th October last year, the company discontinued, because, in its opinion, they no longer bore any relation to productivity and costing.
It was the second scheme which it decided was improper—I see the point about it deciding the matter arbitrarily—and which began the sequence of events which my hon. Friend has outlined. It resulted in the men on the site refusing to operate the original costed bonus scheme. It resulted in the men on the site working to rule, and according to the company that work to rule so disturbed the phasing of the building operation, that by 14th October there was no possibility of the work continuing in its planned form. That is the explanation given by the company for the decision on 14th October to dismiss 80 employees, who, the company said, it could no longer employ because the previous work to rule had made it impossible for their work to continue.
Two days before that the company had withdrawn its recognition of the works committee. It was at that stage that the company first consulted the regional manpower advisers of the D.E.P., and the advice given to the company was the advice which I am sure my hon. Friends would hope and expect the staff of my Department to give. The company was urged to work closely with the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives. The company was encouraged to return to the costed, well calculated, adequately measured work standards, and it was encouraged to put the dispute—for by this time dispute it was—into procedure.
The dispute was referred to a regional disputes commission, under procedure, and the commission confirmed the facts as I have outlined them, including the problem of the ad hoc additions to the original bonus scheme. The commission urged negotiations on a properly costed bonus scheme which must be renegotiated at regular intervals to make sure that both the unions and the company were operating a scheme about which the costings were mutually agreed, and which could be related to a realistic payments system.
As my hon. Friend said, the regional disputes commission did not by its intervention bring the dispute to an end, and again, under procedure, the argument passed to the national commission, which took very much the same line and made very much the same judgment. On 15th November this commission urged a joint


working party to visit the site to consider two points, the re-negotiation of the bonus scheme according to acceptable lines, and a resumption of work by reopening the site.
Those two points, both of which it is equally necessary to resolve if the dispute is to be brought to an honourable conclusion, are the bones of contention which remain, the company considering that normal working and the removing of all restrictions is necessary before reemployment can begin, and the union regarding reinstatement of its suspended workers as the first priority.
I ought to say as an aside, as the idea has been canvassed in a lucidly produced, indeed expensively produced, leaflet which has been circulating in London during the recent weeks of this dispute, that to suggest that the argument is because the National Board for Prices and Incomes regards the payment on the site as too high, is palpably and totally untrue. The argument on the site may be about a number of things which, as my hon. Friend says, are shades of grey, rather than black and white, but it is not about either intervention by the Board or the Government, or the result of the prices and incomes policy.

Mr. Russell Kerr: My hon. Friend must have misunderstood me. I was saying that in the normal way industrial disputes are shades of grey rather than black and white. In this instance it came very close to being black and white.

Mr. Hattersley: I take the point that one side had a good deal more to commend it than the other, but, even in an argument of this sort, where it is understandable that the parties have strong and passionate views, one can produce an argument for both sides, and it is my duty this evening to put the arguments as objectively and as clearly as I can. It is certainly my duty to explain that on a number of occasions the intervention of my Department has been offered, and I emphasise the word "offered". It is often the case that the D.E.P., and its predecessor the Ministry of Labour, is accused of standing idly by, waiting for one or both parties to make a formal request for its intervention. Because of the nature of this dispute we have approached both parties asking if they

felt that our intervention was possible; if our intervention was necessary; if our intervention would be fruitful—and both parties, and I emphasise that it is both parties, told us that they would regard our intervention at this stage as being inappropriate.
The contention remains on the company's side that normal working must be resumed before negotiations can begin and on the union's side that reinstatement must take place before negotiations are possible. But I can tell the House that on 12th February there is to be a resumed meeting between the parties and it is the hope of all of us that that meeting can bring some sense into this senseless dispute and enable work to go on.
I hope that it is some consolation to my hon. Friend that we have made inquiries during the day about the allegations which he told the House were prevalent and were repeated in the Morning Star of yesterday, that the company is anxious to abandon work on this site because it seems unprofitable and therefore any excuse would be welcome in terms of avoiding its obligations to complete the contract. I am happy to tell him that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government tells me that to the best of his knowledge—having made inquiries through the local council—there has been no attempt, no suggestion, no implication, and no hint from the company that work should be abandoned; indeed, its attempts, along with those of the union, as part of the recommendation of the national commission, to work through national council auspices to get a solution of this dispute suggests that the firm is more than anxious to complete work on this site and provide the 1,100 homes which are so badly needed and the completion of which has been so sadly and disastrously delayed.
Three morals—if morals is the right word—remain. The first is that problems must inevitably arise if, on top of a properly organised and co-ordinated bonus and incentive system a company, through the weakness of its management, allows additional ad hoc haphazard payments to be so imposed that the entire payments system is thrown out of gear.
The second moral is that if a dispute over such a technicality develops


any intemperate action which might be taken by one or the other party leads to more and more disastrous action, and the moment that action is taken which is less than thoughtful, less than considered, less than objective, one begins upon a course of events that produces the most disastrous outcome
The third moral is that whilst the responsible parties make every endeavour to bring the dispute to an end and get the men back to work on the site it is essential that all of us who have the interest of the unions and of the prospective tenants at heart should turn our minds to the attempts to reopen the site on or after 12th February rather than concern ourselves with apportioning blame and condemnation. It is an enormous temptation to do that in this case but it is a temptation which must be resisted, for our only objective is to get the site open and the men back to work.
It is not the intention of the Government this evening to apportion blame, but simply to say that our obligations lie not in that luxury but in doing all we can to get the site reopened and the men back to work. I give the House the absolute undertaking that all our offices will be used between now and 12th February to get work started again.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: We would all agree with the last few words of my hon. Friend. I want to direct my remarks to two brief points and allow time for my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) to make his points. First, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary seemed to have some doubt whether it was right to use the word "morals". It is right in both senses. As The Times might say, it is

a moral issue. The treatment of workers by their employers is a moral issue.
I did not entirely like the Minister's use of the word "senseless" as though it applied to both sides in this dispute. It is not at all senseless from the point of view of the workers, if their treatment has been correctly outlined tonight, as I gather it has. But I am very glad that my hon. Friend has been able to deal with the question as he has and I hope that his efforts will be successful.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: It is not good enough for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to walk the tightrope in this way and lean over to the employers' side. He and his Department are very quick to criticise the actions of workers very explicitly when they think that they are wrong, and it is their duty to say to the employers, "It is your responsibility to reinstate these men and then negotiations can start." The employees and unions are only asking for the social justice of their members being reinstated and are then prepared to negotiate.
My hon. Friend's Department is supposed to be a conciliation Department. Surely they should take a public stand on this, if the facts are as stated by my hon. Friends, who know more about this matter than I do. There is a moral obligation on the Department to come off the fence and say clearly where the first responsibility lies, and then negotiations can start. My hon. Friend should recognise that this is an official dispute by major trade unions in the building industry: his Department should take some cognisance of that.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.